Roe V Wade has been repealed

[BitMasterPlus]

If you say so bud. Just remember, according to the Constitution I have more rights than a fetus.

Nah you don't.

 

[SyphenFreht]

No, it can't. Sperm has a 0% chance of developing into a separate human, just as a kidney has a 0% chance of developing into a separate human. Only once a sperm fertilises an egg and travels to the uterus can it develop into an independent organism.

Sperm has a 0% on it's own, yes, but a fetus before the first trimester also has a 0% of survival outside it's mother. Considering sperm is the only way to form a baby, and based upon Republican logic, if a woman's bodily autonomy is restricted to protect the baby, then the man's should be as well.

Nah you don't.

Are you ok? You seem to be up my ass a lot. Although I guess I shouldn't be surprised; you seem to be the kind of person that leeches onto people smarter and more assertive than you.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

whereas a fetus is an independent organism with its own DNA that is separate from your DNA. The fetus needs the woman's body as a source of energy so that it can grow, but it's not a part of her body. It's only temporarily attached to her body.

So a parasite?

 

[Dark_Ansem]

Wow. You really are a hard-headed person. You choose not to accept reality.

No matter, the facts still stand. Abortion is NOT constitutional. You want an abortion then go to a state where it's legalized.

No, you're just an incoherent moron.

 

[tabzer]

Kidney metaphor is bunk for all the reasons @AleronIves pointed out. Forcing a bank to bail someone out is not the same as forcing a bank to employ someone based on hiring requirements. Although both do happen, it isn't comparable because you are dealing with separate issues and there isn't consistency between the variables and their representation. The people who the kidney metaphor works for already agree that the obligation being presented is comparable but it serves no purpose in terms of an argument to people who think that the obligation isn't comparable. At best it's virtue signaling to proponents that do not see virtue. Likely, it's just self-gratification.

It may be suggested that bodily autonomy is the only thing that matters here, but the reality is that we don't exist in a society were bodily autonomy exists. Maybe it's impossible to achieve in reality. We have obligations in which we must dedicate our time and health to meet. Parents are responsible for children in their home. We have to pay bills. We have to share air and water with each other (and with corporations who don't care about our health as long as it doesn't affect the bottom line). Most people live in a state of coercion, or rebellion, because their basic needs aren't guaranteed.

 

[AleronIves]

It may be suggested that bodily autonomy is the only thing that matters here, but the reality is that we don't exist in a society were bodily autonomy exists.

I don't think that's quite right. We do have some rights to bodily autonomy, at least in the US. As the saying goes, your right to swing your arm stops just short of where it hits my face. The problem is that Lacius is assuming that the fetus has no right to bodily autonomy, whereas the woman does, so therefore her rights are obviously supreme. This issue is nowhere close to being settled, so it's an ineffective argument. The whole point of opposing abortion is that you believe a fetus has rights that are violated when you kill it, so... you shouldn't kill it. Lacius's arguments are basically, "A fetus has no rights, so killing it is fine!" That's not an argument. That's just stating the extreme pro-abortion position as if it were fact, which is obviously not compelling to the anti-abortion camp.

 

[smf]

Yes.... that's exactly what I said. I said "It could be A, but it could also be B". Then you said "It could also be B". That doesn't move the conversation forward at all.

Also, using loaded language like murder (Which it isn't), or death penalty (Which it isn't) isn't helping your position in any way. If you read my previous hypothetical question, you'd come to the same conclusion.

I was restating your point in the first sentence, to make it clear in the second sentence.

I called executing someone murder, because people are calling abortion murder.

Maybe my point was too subtle for you.

 

[smf]

Kidney metaphor is bunk for all the reasons @AleronIves pointed out.

In your opinion.

The woman's egg is her property at the point of conception, it has been part of her body since she was born. Her body will likely not even retain it. Much later the fetus has some rights, but lets focus on <28 weeks.

If we have a responsibility to keep something alive that has no brain activity, then what does that say about people at the end of life?

Should the state raise taxes to prolong the life of someone who is brain dead, in case there is some future treatment that allows them to recover?

 

[tabzer]

I don't think that's quite right. We do have some rights to bodily autonomy, at least in the US. As the saying goes, your right to swing your arm stops just short of where it hits my face. The problem is that Lacius is assuming that the fetus has no right to bodily autonomy, whereas the woman does, so therefore her rights are obviously supreme. This issue is nowhere close to being settled, so it's an ineffective argument. The whole point of opposing abortion is that you believe a fetus has rights that are violated when you kill it, so... you shouldn't kill it. Lacius's arguments are basically, "A fetus has no rights, so killing it is fine!" That's not an argument. That's just stating the extreme pro-abortion position as if it were fact, which is obviously not compelling to the anti-abortion camp.

I agree that your point about the rights of the fetus being a source of contention are not being respected by his metaphor. I disagree with the suggestion that bodily autonomy may be the premise of human rights. I'm not sure if you are going as far to say that much, but I feel if that is a point that should be addressed. Sorry if it seemed like I was trying to conflate our concerns.

@smf, in your opinion. Would you argue that people are not the property of the state, when everything that they do in their life is weighted on the survival of the state? You haven't been saying things that suggests that you are interested in sanctifying life, so I don't see much value in making arguments against nihilistic suggestions you assume to be true.

 

[titan_tim]

I was restating your point in the first sentence, to make it clear in the second sentence.

I called executing someone murder, because people are calling abortion murder.

If your point to make clear that the future person could become the doctor that cures cancer, the chances of that, based on statistics, are much lower than becoming a murderer.

Also, just because people like to call it murder, doesn't mean that you need to follow then, and thus be wrong together with them. People also say the earth is flat, but I would hope that you wouldn't follow them as well.

You never looked back at my hypothetical in that conversation, did you. If you want, I can restate it here to hear what you think.

 

[Lacius]

I guess I'll try one more time. You don't seem to have thought this analogy through.

In your last post, you literally thought the kidney represented the fetus in my analogy, lol.

For one thing, the results of action and inaction are opposed. In a pregnancy, inaction promotes life, as the fetus will continue to develop, as long as you don't kill it. Action will end the fetus's life. In the kidney scenario, inaction promotes death. You won't get my kidney unless I give it to you, so if I do nothing, you die. If I act by giving you my kidney, you will live.

Bodily autonomy is the freedom to do, or not do, whatever I want to my body, so your distinction between action and inaction is irrelevant to the topic of bodily autonomy.

Pretend a state makes a law that violates people's bodily autonomy rights in the name of saving lives. Am I describing anti-abortion laws, or am I describing mandated kidney donations? If you don't know which one I'm describing, then your argument has a problem.

People are not obliged to take extraordinary measures (i.e. putting their own lives at risk) to prevent bad things, including death, from befalling other people.

people don't have an obligation to save the lives of strangers by endangering their own.

I'm glad we agree. It sounds here like you should be against anti-abortion laws.

 

[smf]

Also, just because people like to call it murder, doesn't mean that you need to follow then, and thus be wrong together with them.

I don't have to do anything, but is it not valid to show someone they are wrong by doing the same thing they are but in a way that you know they will disagree with?

If your point to make clear that the future person could become the doctor that cures cancer, the chances of that, based on statistics, are much lower than becoming a murderer.

So it's ok to kill people based on statistics?

 

[BitMasterPlus]

Are you ok? You seem to be up my ass a lot. Although I guess I shouldn't be surprised; you seem to be the kind of person that leeches onto people smarter and more assertive than you.

Just want to help you with your constant projections of yourself.

 

[SyphenFreht]

Just want to help you with your constant projections of yourself.

Where are my projections in my fight to retain bodily autonomy?

 

[BitMasterPlus]

Where are my projections in my fight to retain bodily autonomy?

You don't have to fight for rights you already have.

 

[SyphenFreht]

You don't have to fight for rights you already have.

So I'm projecting the rights I already have?

 

[AleronIves]

I agree that your point about the rights of the fetus being a source of contention are not being respected by his metaphor. I disagree with the suggestion that bodily autonomy may be the premise of human rights.

I'm not saying it is. I'm framing this in the way Lacius did solely to highlight the problem with his analogy. He says a woman has a right to bodily autonomy, and therefore she has a right to kill the fetus. The anti-abortion camp would say that a fetus has a right to bodily autonomy, too, since it's a separate organism with its own DNA and not a part of the woman's body; therefore, the woman doesn't have a right to kill it. The anti-abortion camp has concerns beyond just bodily autonomy, but establishing a fetal right to bodily autonomy is as far as you need to go to refute his argument.

In your last post, you literally thought the kidney represented the fetus in my analogy, lol.

I apologise for the confusion. In my defense, your analogy doesn't make sense, so it's easy to be confused as to what point you're trying to make.

I'm glad we agree. It sounds here like you should be against anti-abortion laws.

I am, to a point. I'm just trying to help you come up with better arguments by challenging your use of terrible analogies.

 

[Lacius]

He says a woman has a right to bodily autonomy, and therefore she has a right to kill the fetus.

You are confused. A woman has a right to bodily autonomy, but she does not have the right to kill a fetus. She does, however, have the right to remove the fetus from her body. There's a very real difference, and the fact that the fetus can't survive outside her is irrelevant, just like the fact that I hypothetically can't survive without your kidney is irrelevant.

The anti-abortion camp would say that a fetus has a right to bodily autonomy, too, since it's a separate organism with its own DNA and not a part of the woman's body.

Even if we say the fetus has a right to bodily autonomy, you don't seem to know what bodily autonomy is. Bodily autonomy doesn't give you the right to another person's body. Per my analogy, I have a right to bodily autonomy, but that does not give me a right to your kidney. Even if a fetus has a right to bodily autonomy, that does not give it a right to the woman's body.

but establishing a fetal right to bodily autonomy is as far as you need to go to refute his argument.

I really don't mean to beat up on you and laugh at you like I've already done, but establishing that you don't know what bodily autonomy is is as far as you need to go to refute your argument, lol.

 

[MicroNut99]

Instead of engaging in mental masturbation I’ll share my experience.

Early in my life my wife was pregnant.

We are both very pro-life.
However, for many reasons this could not happen.
So we choose to end the pregnancy.
It hurt us both very much.

Today we are both much older.
She is remarried with children and we have a good friendship.
And yet that personal choice still hurt us.
The future is never clear. We live in the moment.

Both of us are also saddened and scared about overturning roe.
We feel judged and yet we know our choice was correct.

Make no doubt about it.
The religious right is coming for you.
They have been for a very long time.

 

[SyphenFreht]

Instead of engaging in mental masturbation I’ll share my experience.

Early in my life my wife was pregnant.

We are both very pro-life.
However, for many reasons this could not happen.
So we choose to end the pregnancy.
It hurt us both very much.

Today we are both much older.
She is remarried with children and we have a good friendship.
And yet that personal choice still hurt us.
The future is never clear. We live in the moment.

Both of us are also saddened and scared about overturning roe.
We feel judged and yet we know our choice was correct.

Make no doubt about it.
The religious right is coming for you.
They have been for a very long time.

My heart aches for you. I appreciate you sharing that with us, and just know that before any of these yokels start flaming you, I know I, and possibly many others on this board, understand the hard choice you had to make to ensure survival, at worst. It's a terrible thing to have happened, but you'll get no harsh judgement from me, neither for your stance or your decision. You made the best decision you could at the time, and it led to what appears to be continued prosperity in at least one aspect of another. A commendable decision in my eyes, if that matters.