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

New Restrictions on Abortion Have Real World Consequences

Page 16 of 21 [ 327 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 ... 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, 9:44 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
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.


It's better than the organ donation analogy. Let's also say you are only there temporarily while they make a new body for you, there will no doubt be some pain and perhaps even a scar or two left behind on me. Even if I didn't consent to your head being put there, I think it is a reasonable, moral demand that I not have you removed when I can wait a few months until they find a new body.

Why is autonomy of the body so much more highly regarded than any other autonomy?


_________________
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, 10:57 pm

Mikah wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
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.


It's better than the organ donation analogy. Let's also say you are only there temporarily while they make a new body for you, there will no doubt be some pain and perhaps even a scar or two left behind on me. Even if I didn't consent to your head being put there, I think it is a reasonable, moral demand that I not have you removed when I can wait a few months until they find a new body.


So you should have your concerns about infection, excessive stress on your heart, potential immune issues, etc ignored? I'd argue that's a cruel and unusual punishment to force you into that position, even if you initially agree and later renege. I'd argue that the inherent costs along with the potential risks make it an unthinkable thing to force someone too, even as an actual punishment for actual wrong-doing.

And I don't consider becoming pregnant to be actual wrong-doing.

Mikah wrote:
Why is autonomy of the body so much more highly regarded than any other autonomy?


Well, because it's one of the most fundamental ones, right up there with thought/consciousness, speech and others that result from you owning yourself entirely.


_________________
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


XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

26 Jun 2021, 6:35 am

Mikah wrote:
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?


Following your logic, if I fall while rock climbing, I'm not entitled to medical help to treat my injuries since I "knew the risks."

And rape is not consensual. I'm not going to entertain your "organ theft" scenario because it's ridiculous, as are scenarios about growing new bodies, artificial wombs, stolen car batteries, ect. When those options become realities, we can discuss them. Until then, they're just thought-experiments that you, as a man, can comfortably ponder with no risk of ever having to experience the current reality of pregnancy.


_________________
"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

26 Jun 2021, 6:40 am

funeralxempire wrote:
Mikah wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
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.


It's better than the organ donation analogy. Let's also say you are only there temporarily while they make a new body for you, there will no doubt be some pain and perhaps even a scar or two left behind on me. Even if I didn't consent to your head being put there, I think it is a reasonable, moral demand that I not have you removed when I can wait a few months until they find a new body.


So you should have your concerns about infection, excessive stress on your heart, potential immune issues, etc ignored? I'd argue that's a cruel and unusual punishment to force you into that position, even if you initially agree and later renege. I'd argue that the inherent costs along with the potential risks make it an unthinkable thing to force someone too, even as an actual punishment for actual wrong-doing.

And I don't consider becoming pregnant to be actual wrong-doing.

Mikah wrote:
Why is autonomy of the body so much more highly regarded than any other autonomy?


Well, because it's one of the most fundamental ones, right up there with thought/consciousness, speech and others that result from you owning yourself entirely.


The fact we're now at the stage where forced-birthers are actually questioning the importance of bodily autonomy is hilarious.

It's been established for quite some time that one human being can't own the body of another human being, at least in the U.S.


_________________
"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

26 Jun 2021, 8:00 am

XFilesGeek wrote:
Following your logic, if I fall while rock climbing, I'm not entitled to medical help to treat my injuries since I "knew the risks."


No that doesn't follow, that's not the sort of comparison we are making. We are not directly comparing falling with pregnancy, we are just understanding the idea of consenting to a possible undesired outcome. And I know you are smart enough to understand this - you are just pretending to be stupid here for the sake of the argument.

XFilesGeek wrote:
And rape is not consensual.


Ah hello again Mr. Rapist, long time no see.

XFilesGeek wrote:
I'm not going to entertain your "organ theft" scenario because it's ridiculous, as are scenarios about growing new bodies, artificial wombs, stolen car batteries, ect. When those options become realities, we can discuss them.


I have to remind you, it is always you who brings it up first by saying something like "should organ donation be mandatory?". To which I respond, no, women should not be forced to become pregnant, but if that has already happened - if the organs are already being used to keep someone alive ... it is at the very least questionable to take them back from someone who will die without them.

XFilesGeek wrote:
Until then, they're just thought-experiments that you, as a man, can comfortably ponder with no risk of ever having to experience the current reality of pregnancy.


That is likely to my advantage and why my position is more consistent and likely morally correct. Questions of law, justice and morals are best considered dispassionately. There's a reason we don't let victims or family members judge and punish those they believe have wronged them, we prefer a sombre third party judge instead to weigh up the rights of the involved parties, their duties, liabilities and responsibility.


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


KimD
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 May 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 581

26 Jun 2021, 1:08 pm

Quote:
So I would have to answer yes, the Embryo has such a right, especially since the use is temporary.


The time a fetus spends in a woman's uterus may be temporary, but many of the effects on her body may be long-term or permanent. Society ignores or glosses over this the way it shies away from, say, facts about a woman's menstruation experiences because it doesn't like to face the less-than-lovely reality of it, and heaven forbid we tell girls and women what they are actually in for! No, it's a fabulous la-la land for one and all.

Please, NO MAN should be telling ANY WOMAN, "pregnancy and childbirth are no big deal." :roll:



Last edited by KimD on 26 Jun 2021, 2:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

uncommondenominator
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2019
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340

26 Jun 2021, 2:06 pm

Mikah wrote:

XFilesGeek wrote:
Until then, they're just thought-experiments that you, as a man, can comfortably ponder with no risk of ever having to experience the current reality of pregnancy.


That is likely to my advantage and why my position is more consistent and likely morally correct. Questions of law, justice and morals are best considered dispassionately. There's a reason we don't let victims or family members judge and punish those they believe have wronged them, we prefer a sombre third party judge instead to weigh up the rights of the involved parties, their duties, liabilities and responsibility.


Ignorance is never an advantage, except to the ignorant.

I feel like this is just a sexist "wOmEn ArE tOo EmOtIoNaL, DA MENZ NeEd To DeCiDe FOR yOu!! !" screech, lazily disguised as "impartiality".

Mikah's argument seems to boil down to "BUT MY WAY IS RIGHT, AND YOUR WAY IS WRONG, BECUASE i SAID SO, BECUASE MY WAY IS RIGHT!! !"



NobodyKnows
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Jun 2011
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 635

26 Jun 2021, 6:18 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
Even if one has a right to be provided with a bare minimum of food, no one is going to be forced to put their needs and interests on hold while providing forced labour to contribute towards that goal.

You can't pay for groceries or housing without bearing the cost of government aid programs (and other programs), so I think anyone who's lived somewhat independently has been compelled to work extra hours to support other people's basic needs. For most people that will add up to >30% of their working lives, or >80,000 hours.

I happen to agree with you that nobody should ever be forced to give up their autonomy for 7,000 hours to bear a kid, though.



Dvdz
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 6 Oct 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 138

26 Jun 2021, 6:49 pm

Mikah wrote:
That is likely to my advantage and why my position is more consistent and likely morally correct. Questions of law, justice and morals are best considered dispassionately. There's a reason we don't let victims or family members judge and punish those they believe have wronged them, we prefer a sombre third party judge instead to weigh up the rights of the involved parties, their duties, liabilities and responsibility.


Just out of curiosity, how confident are you that you are morally correct? 50%? 90%?



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

26 Jun 2021, 6:55 pm

NobodyKnows wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Even if one has a right to be provided with a bare minimum of food, no one is going to be forced to put their needs and interests on hold while providing forced labour to contribute towards that goal.

You can't pay for groceries or housing without bearing the cost of government aid programs (and other programs), so I think anyone who's lived somewhat independently has been compelled to work extra hours to support other people's basic needs. For most people that will add up to >30% of their working lives, or >80,000 hours.


I can't say I've ever viewed taxation as a violation of one's bodily autonomy.


_________________
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

26 Jun 2021, 6:59 pm

Dvdz wrote:
Just out of curiosity, how confident are you that you are morally correct? 50%? 90%?


I don't think I could put a number on it. I must be open to the possibility that I am wrong, after all I was once on the other side. But after many years arguing about it I am fairly confident another turn around in my views on this is unlikely.


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


Dvdz
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 6 Oct 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 138

26 Jun 2021, 9:44 pm

Mikah wrote:
I don't think I could put a number on it. I must be open to the possibility that I am wrong, after all I was once on the other side. But after many years arguing about it I am fairly confident another turn around in my views on this is unlikely.


Ok. How do you know you are correct? As you said, you were once on the other side. I assume you believed you were correct then as well.

You said previously you came to this conclusion that human life begins at conception through logic and a process of elimination. Is that how you know you are correct? Or is it because you argued over the years and couldn't be convinced otherwise (i.e lack of convincing argument for other side)?



Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

27 Jun 2021, 3:24 am

Dvdz wrote:
Ok. How do you know you are correct?


I cannot know, but I suspect it. My position is simple and consistent, not just with itself but with a basic understanding of biology - there is no need for Religion in my argument, nor need to invent unusual principles, rights or different states of humanness to justify the position. This largely isn't true of the opposing arguments. Those who argue a lot know that inconsistency and classifying humans when the debate is about deliberate killing, is usually a sign that the position is monstrously wrong.


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


Dvdz
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 6 Oct 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 138

27 Jun 2021, 5:48 am

Mikah wrote:
I cannot know, but I suspect it. My position is simple and consistent, not just with itself but with a basic understanding of biology - there is no need for Religion in my argument, nor need to invent unusual principles, rights or different states of humanness to justify the position. This largely isn't true of the opposing arguments. Those who argue a lot know that inconsistency and classifying humans when the debate is about deliberate killing, is usually a sign that the position is monstrously wrong.


Correct me if I'm wrong but what I think you are saying is that a position that is simple and consistent is correct when compared to a position that is not as simple or consistent?



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,555
Location: the island of defective toy santas

27 Jun 2021, 5:50 am

beware of simple answers for complex questions.



Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

27 Jun 2021, 6:55 am

Dvdz wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but what I think you are saying is that a position that is simple and consistent is correct when compared to a position that is not as simple or consistent?


It is more likely to be correct, with a greater emphasis on consistency.

Complex, yet consistent > simple and inconsistent, but inconsistency often leads to complexity as attempts to patch up the holes of the sinking ship see an incomprehensible web of justifications and half-baked ideas welded onto the hull in an ad hoc fashion, so complexity itself can serve as a red flag as part of a more in depth analysis.


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