Religion Catch All

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
2172

You’ve mentioned this before.

Ok fine lets accept that:

  1. An individual has autonomy over their body.

Thats easy enough for most people to get behind right. I even agree with that.

Ok so. Then you don’t have an argument regarding if a developing child is a “person” inside the womb or once they pass through the vaginal canal?

Because if you do see the developing child as a human being then it becomes a question of whose rights supercede the other.

Because if you believe in body autonomy then does the mother have the right to kill the child?

She is infringing upon their autonomy in the most severest of ways possible.

You cannot say that abortion is not murder. Especially if you view the developing child as life which if left uninterrupted will result, ideally, in functioning member of society.

Maybe your definition of murder is different than mine.

Murder: Murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human with malice aforethought.

Thats one definition.

Now we need to define unlawful.

And we get into the whole argument as too if abortion is a valid “excuse” or not for killing an unborn child.

You see how complex this is.

Now it is not complex if you value the unborn child. Once you do that it actually becomes a very easy and simple conundrum.

Is ending another persons life because of “body autonomy” which will only last 9 months and only 6 months of which will it usually start to impede upon your life proper justification?

This is my real fucking issue with this.

Life is amazing. Life is beautiful. To me at least. Despite how shitty this world can be. I hold it sacred. Not necessarily in a religious sense as I am not religious but still sacred.

It baffles me. Life being as beautiful and rare as it is. That people don’t see that and cannot sacrifice for nine months, really 6 months. For this amazing phenomena to join us in this world/universe.

I think each of us. If asked. If you could go back in time and your parents were going to medically terminate you. Would you try to stop them?

Then answer is YES. Yes you would. At least it is very likely you would.

So can you not extend some compassion to the unborn. Because if you let them live wait 20 years and ask them the same question. They will most likely give you the same answer.

We are so selfish today. That we willingly indulge in infanticide. Something that I think goes against our very nature. We used to value the youth, children and unborn generation.

It seems like with each year we value them less and less.

As an after thought I’’ also mention this.

Legally speaking in most parts of the world.

“Killing” is not a legal term.

In the USA it is the following:

1st degree murder
2nd deg murder
Voluntary manslaughter
Involuntary manslaughter

I would argue that it is first degree.

But I am not expert on law.

2173

If you’ve voluntarily engaged in an act that you know can cause the creation of a life, you have already assumed the responsibility to ensure it’s survival.

3 Likes
2174

It really comes down to wanting to “fuck” with no responsibility. Me, my needs, my pleasure, numero uno.

1 Like
2175

It’s the idiots who fuck without the use of contraception.

2176

The bodily autonomy argument doesn’t require that the unborn not be considered a person. We can assume that the unborn is a person.

The mother’s rights supersede the unborn’s, because it is the unborn using the mother’s body, not the other way around.

She has the right to remove the child from her bodily support. Usually that results in death. I think the most humane way to do so is to kill the child quickly while inside the womb (and this is what is done in an abortion procedure typically).

Disagree here. I think it is legally justified under the 14th amendment.

According to SCOTUS, violation of bodily autonomy is a valid justification.

I am only arguing from a legal / rights perspective since I am arguing the position that abortion should be legal. I think it can often be not a compassionate act, and the morals of it are tricky to navigate. I’ll concede you that point.

The morals around it are separate from legality in a similar way to adultery. Adultery is IMO immoral, but I don’t see a way to justify making it illegal.

I don’t mean any disrespect, but I don’t buy this argument. Consent to sex isn’t consent to a child. There is no responsibility (or agreement) that I can see that is obvious (that would override a person’s right to bodily autonomy).

2177

I agree with this.

A degradation of morals. That is reflective of widespread decay.

I don’t think it is such an issue. To use one of Brickhead’s favourite words. If you don’t embrace a licentious lifestyle and conform to a conservative value system.

There is seldom a need for contraception.

1 Like
2178

Nah, just discussing shit. Not emotionally involved in this.

It is acknowledging the possibility of a child being created from the act. This isn’t about consent. This is about assumption of responsibility.

2179

This is fair on an individual level. I don’t think we can legally require people to give up their bodily autonomy because they engaged in sex (I think for your original argument to be valid, you would need to show that they do lose bodily autonomy by having sex, I haven’t seen anyone successfully argue this yet). Moral is a different question, but I think that comes down to the individual involved.

2180

I don’t think fucking around is an issue as long as you use contraception.

2181

No, what I’m saying is that if it is reasonably foreseeable that the act can cause the creation of a life, you have implicitly assumed the responsibility to ensure it’s survival until such a time when it doesn’t require your body to survive. Which means you can give it up for adoption when it’s born.

When I use the word “responsibility”, I’m not using it in terms of morality. If you assume the responsibility to take care of a disabled person, and you let the person die because you can’t be bothered to feed him, it’s an act of negligence, i.e, homicide by omission.

2182

I am not convinced one has implicitly assumed this responsibility. Can you show that one does in fact have this responsibility? The reason I ask is I used to think this same thing. When given the same burden (to show that one does have the responsibility), I couldn’t do it.

2183

It’s about foreseeability. You fuck without contraception, you can get pregnant. It’s pretty much common sense.

1 Like
2184

I don’t think it is obvious, and I don’t think it supersedes bodily autonomy from a legal perspective. I think for the argument to be valid, one would need to show these things.

2185

Well it does to a degree.

Because

We get this issue.

Ok but if we agree that the unborn is a person.

We have to compare which is worse.

The murder and loss of a life that would have lasted let us say 70 years.

Or the loss of a women “autonomy” for less than a year.

We are not talking about methods here. Irrelevant.

It is certainly a grey area.

Definition of murder involves an element of premeditation.

Abortion. Obviously premeditated.

So then it may become dependant on wether it is lawful.

SCOTUS is made of humans. They are fallible creatures.

Blacks were once legally considered 3/5th a person.

Also. I think the court stated they were unable to ascertain if the constitution considered unborn equal to the born.

So they moved forward in their evaluation as if they were not equal. I would imagine the outcome would be different if that conclusion had been different.

It is hardwired into our genome.

To the individual. Especially if we consider our hunter gatherer ancestors. It would be way easier to the individual to either kill the child in utero. If they could that is. Or once it is born throw it to the wolves and not be bother with that burden.

But lets say 60 % of humans felt that way. On a long enough time line. There goes Homo sapiens. They just die out.

But because we have this intrinsic instinct. Which is a product of natural selection no less.

We typically care for our children. Feel obligated to protect them and nurture them. Because if we didn’t there goes our species.

2186

Well, I think it should be obvious(the foreseeability of the possibility of getting pregnant without the use of contraceptives).

In my example above, the responsibility to ensure the survival of a disabled individual shouldn’t supersede the right to not be bound by involuntary servitude, which is slavery.

The only difference is that the person who assumed the responsibility has the option of putting the disabled person in the hands of someone else, unlike a woman carrying an unborn child. However, what if no one is willing to assume the responsibility to take care of this disabled person?

I guess if it’s just these 2 points in contention, we can agree to disagree. I get where you’re coming from, and I hope you get where I am too.

2187

No we don’t. It is irrelevant how long someone will live. They don’t have rights to another’s body.

Do you think a parent should legally be forced to donate a kidney to their child? I think they should do it, I don’t think they should be required to because of bodily autonomy. The child might live for another 100 years, but that’s irrelevant.

Read up on it. It came down to the 14th amendment, and bodily rights.

2188

I do. I think perhaps we are arguing separate topics. I’m arguing about legality of abortion. I think you are talking a bit more about morals. From a legal standpoint, I don’t see any agreement to carry a child to term caused from having sex. I can see it from a morals standpoint.

2189

I don’t, and cannot look at it from a moral standpoint because then I would be on the side of the mother. It’s a (theoretical) legal argument for me.

2190

It is not irrelevant. And we do have to compare.

Your logic is too black and white.

It is not. Person has autonomy of their body and that trumps anything else.

You have to compare the two.

Two outcomes:

  1. Loss of autonomy for less than a year.

  2. Loss of potential life and the ramifications associated with that.

I personally think loss of potential life is worse than loss of autonomy for less than a year.

Some other things to consider:

  1. Why are drugs generally illegal. (I am aware you think they shouldn’t) But the SCOTUS thinks they should be.
  2. Euthanasia is illegal. SCOTUS thinks it should be too.
  3. What about consensual incest?

Not the same thing. One doesn’t necessarily result in the loss of a life.

Also just for the record I don’t think a parent should be obligated.

But it is also only natural that most parents would most likely donate that kidney.

Why. Because we still, despite all the bullshit, live in a society that values life.

It is hardwired into our genome as I said before. A byproduct of natural selection.

If you want to engage in discussion. Then engage. It is an opportunity to possibly teach and learn something.

I’ve read up on it.

From our pals at wiki:

The state of Texas had argued that total bans on abortion were justifiable because “life” begins at the moment of conception, and therefore its governmental interest in protecting prenatal life should apply to all pregnancies regardless of their stage.[6] But the Court found that there was no indication that the Constitution’s uses of the word “person” were meant to include fetuses, and so it rejected Texas’s argument that a fetus should be considered a “person” with a legal and constitutional right to life.[5] It noted that there was still great disagreement over when an unborn fetus becomes a living being

2191

But you can’t get pregnant so you can’t honestly know how you would feel.