Choice

Alright so we are in agreement that it should be legal for the mother to remove the baby in any of the following situations:
  1. The baby's life is not harmed
  2. The mother was raped
  3. The mother is in danger of death due to the pregnancy
Actually--as long as the baby is not harmed, do it anytime a woman wants. That isn't abortion, thus I don't care.
If it is not any of those 3 cases: Do you think how a woman becomes pregnant (e.g. rape, consensual sex with condom, consensual sex without condom, etc) should be a factor in determining the legality of removing the baby from the woman's body? (I think your answer was yes to this question, but I want to be sure I understood correctly)
In such a case, I don't care what the woman does. As long as the baby is not harmed, as long as the child receives the care it needs, as long as the child is put up for adoption, no harm no foul.

This may not be ideal, perhaps, but it is far better than abortion.
 
Great! We've found some common ground.
Good.
With our current technology, when a woman is pregnant and wants to remove the baby, the baby may die. In this situation the law cannot support both the baby's and the mother's bodily autonomy. Either it's legal to remove the baby (mother's bodily autonomy supported, baby's is not) OR it's illegal to remove the baby (mother's bodily autonomy not supported, baby's is).

Your position is that the mother's bodily autonomy should not be legally supported and the baby's should be legally supported. Is that right?
If you want to put it that way, I guess so. When a woman is pregnant, there are two lives to consider, not just one.
By [self-enforced] I mean the honor system. I like your position with private businesses.

OK great! More common ground.

I see here you stated your position with respect to a right to life. I talked before (I think with you) about a 1 day old that needed to use the mother's body in order to survive. Do you think the right to life applies in that situation as well? (i.e. Should it be legal for the mother to refuse the use of her body to her 1 day old child?)
Again, as this is not the natural course, no. In other words-----once a child is born, it is not the natural course to remain attached to the mother.

If a child that was born would die without remaining attached to the mother, I do not think the woman has an obligation to remain attached to the child. This is becasue the child has some kind of medical disorder---and that disorder is the ultimate reason for the death of the child. A woman cannot remain attached to her child indefinitely. Children have to be detached from their mothers.

In such a case, detaching the child does not constitute an abortion becasue the doctor isn't directly killing the child. The disorder is what is killing the child. If the doctor detaches the child--and then treats the child as best as the doctor can, and allows it to die naturally, that isn't an abortion.

However, if the doctor either killed the child before detachment, or detached the child and refused to give it comfort care measures, or detached the child, then killed it--that would be an abortion.
If you share a body with someone, then both of you have legal rights to that body from a bodily autonomy perspective. If you're living inside someone else, then (from a bodily autonomy perspective) the person you're living in should have the ability to remove permission to live in their body.
The problem is that reason the child is living inside of its mother's body--is becasue the mother had sex--and the pregnancy resulted as a natural consequences of that!
 
I think it should be illegal yes, though there may be exceptional circumstances. I am generally in favour of the original 1967 UK Abortion Act and the rare and exceptional cases. So would you say I am for or against abortion?
I think you believe abortion is acceptable in some situations and unacceptable in other situations.
partly but also because this is the human reproductive process.
Do you believe other interruptions in the human reproductive process should be illegal? For example: condoms, birth control, etc
So do you not think bodily autonomy includes whether there is sexual intercourse?
Bodily autonomy is a position that people should have as much control over their bodies as possible. I'm not sure what you mean when you say, "bodily autonomy includes whether there is sexual intercourse", but I'll make an attempt at answering.

How the mom became pregnant isn't a factor in the position of bodily autonomy with respect to abortion. The position of bodily autonomy addresses whether the mother should be able to legally remove permission for the baby to be in the mother's body, no matter how or why the baby was conceived.

Another way to look at this is masks and vaccines. The position of bodily autonomy addresses whether a person should be able to legally refuse to put on a mask or put a vaccine in their body, no matter the reasons of the people pushing for masks and vaccines.
 
Good.

If you want to put it that way, I guess so. When a woman is pregnant, there are two lives to consider, not just one.

Again, as this is not the natural course, no. In other words-----once a child is born, it is not the natural course to remain attached to the mother.

If a child that was born would die without remaining attached to the mother, I do not think the woman has an obligation to remain attached to the child. This is becasue the child has some kind of medical disorder---and that disorder is the ultimate reason for the death of the child. A woman cannot remain attached to her child indefinitely. Children have to be detached from their mothers.

In such a case, detaching the child does not constitute an abortion becasue the doctor isn't directly killing the child. The disorder is what is killing the child. If the doctor detaches the child--and then treats the child as best as the doctor can, and allows it to die naturally, that isn't an abortion.

However, if the doctor either killed the child before detachment, or detached the child and refused to give it comfort care measures, or detached the child, then killed it--that would be an abortion.
It appears that you do not support the mother's bodily autonomy when the baby is inside the mother, but do support the mother's bodily autonomy when the baby is outside of the mother. You base this position on two ideas:
  1. if the child is outside of the mother, the doctor is not directly killing the child
  2. it is not the natural course for a child to use the mother's body after birth
Is that a correct summary of your position?


If so, some counterpoints:

#1 seems semantic. I could use your framework make a similar argument about removing the baby. The doctor is not directly killing the baby by removing it from the mother, our lack of technology is killing the baby. Sounds weird, right? I don't understand why you have a special case when the baby is inside the mother vs. outside the mother. In both cases (removal of the baby and unhooking the baby) it's the actions of the doctor (and decisions of the mother) that cause the baby to die. Why are you OK with one method that causes the death of the baby, but not OK with the other?

Do you apply your reasoning for #2 to anything else in your life? For example, medicine prevents viruses from running their natural course, should medicine be illegal? Braces prevent teeth from running their natural course, should braces be illegal? It seems like you are making a special case to care about 'the natural course' for removal of a baby, but not to care about 'the natural course' for other things in your life. This is not consistent reasoning.

The problem is that reason the child is living inside of its mother's body--is becasue the mother had sex--and the pregnancy resulted as a natural consequences of that!
Are you saying that the mother should not have bodily autonomy (i.e. illegal to remove the baby) because pregnancy is a consequence of the mother's actions? What about when pregnancy is not a consequence of the mother's actions? (rape)

You said before that a life is a life is a life, even when dealing with rape, right? So it seems like you think it should be illegal for the mother to remove her baby regardless of whether the pregnancy is due to mother's actions or not.
 
It appears that you do not support the mother's bodily autonomy when the baby is inside the mother, but do support the mother's bodily autonomy when the baby is outside of the mother. You base this position on two ideas:
  1. if the child is outside of the mother, the doctor is not directly killing the child
  2. it is not the natural course for a child to use the mother's body after birth
Is that a correct summary of your position?
You are conflating two things here: 1) what constitutes and abortion, and 2) disease.

A direct abortion is when a woman goes to her doctor and wants to "terminate" her pregnancy through the use of chemicals or surgical procedure, in which case the doctor will kill the unborn child through those means. The object of the procedure----the whole point of the procedure is to kill the child, then evacuate the remains.

An abortion is not removal of a child from the womb, then providing health care to the child so that it lives--and then putting it up for adoption.

An abortion is not-----disconnecting the mother from her child because the child cannot survive due to a disorder -----and then doing what one medically can for the child----and the child dying anyway. The child in an ultimate sense is dying because of the disorder, not because the doctor murdered the child.
If so, some counterpoints:

#1 seems semantic. I could use your framework make a similar argument about removing the baby. The doctor is not directly killing the baby by removing it from the mother, our lack of technology is killing the baby.
Except there---the intention is that the child dies. The procedure happens not because of some disorder, but solely because the woman wants it. There is nothing wrong. The woman just doesn't want her child. A woman not wanting her child is not a reason to murder it.
Sounds weird, right? I don't understand why you have a special case when the baby is inside the mother vs. outside the mother. In both cases (removal of the baby and unhooking the baby) it's the actions of the doctor (and decisions of the mother) that cause the baby to die. Why are you OK with one method that causes the death of the baby, but not OK with the other?
What actions? Disconnecting the child from its mother and providing care for it? Yeah--that looks just like an abortion to me! That is exactly what happens in an abortion! The doctor takes great care to remove the child from the womb, then provides care for it.
Do you apply your reasoning for #2 to anything else in your life? For example, medicine prevents viruses from running their natural course, should medicine be illegal?
No--see--cause---when someone has a virus---something is wrong. The medicine is meant to assist the body.

Pregnancy is not a disease, sir.
Braces prevent teeth from running their natural course, should braces be illegal? It seems like you are making a special case to care about 'the natural course' for removal of a baby, but not to care about 'the natural course' for other things in your life. This is not consistent reasoning.
Sir, pregnancy is not a disease that needs to be eradicated through medical treatment. That is the difference. When a pregnancy results, nothing is going wrong with the body. Pregnancy is supposed to happen. The female body is designed for pregnancy.
Are you saying that the mother should not have bodily autonomy (i.e. illegal to remove the baby) because pregnancy is a consequence of the mother's actions?
You catch on quick! But not ONLY because of that. Abortion should be illegal because human persons have the right--not be murdered.
What about when pregnancy is not a consequence of the mother's actions? (rape)
I said I would concede exceptions for rape. That said, I do not believe abortion is justifiable in such a case--since---it is irrelevant how the person came to be. What matters is that they are a person.
You said before that a life is a life is a life, even when dealing with rape, right?
I did! And I will say it again, in case you missed it: a life, is a life, is a life, is a life. It does not matter HOW the person came to be, what matters is that they came to be. The fact that the person came to be through rape---does not change their nature.
So it seems like you think it should be illegal for the mother to remove her baby regardless of whether the pregnancy is due to mother's actions or not.
Yes. However, I am willing to make concessions for rape--due to the fact that the woman didn't choose to get pregnant in such a case. In other words, while I do not agree that abortion is morally justifiable in such a case, I admit, I can understand why a victim of rape would want an abortion.
 
You are conflating two things here: 1) what constitutes and abortion, and 2) disease.

A direct abortion is when a woman goes to her doctor and wants to "terminate" her pregnancy through the use of chemicals or surgical procedure, in which case the doctor will kill the unborn child through those means. The object of the procedure----the whole point of the procedure is to kill the child, then evacuate the remains.

An abortion is not removal of a child from the womb, then providing health care to the child so that it lives--and then putting it up for adoption.

An abortion is not-----disconnecting the mother from her child because the child cannot survive due to a disorder -----and then doing what one medically can for the child----and the child dying anyway. The child in an ultimate sense is dying because of the disorder, not because the doctor murdered the child.

Except there---the intention is that the child dies. The procedure happens not because of some disorder, but solely because the woman wants it. There is nothing wrong. The woman just doesn't want her child. A woman not wanting her child is not a reason to murder it.
Remember that I'm asking you to think of abortion from the perspective of bodily autonomy (which is my perspective). From this perspective, abortion is removing the baby, not killing the baby. I realize this is not the commonly used definition of abortion, which is why I've attempted to avoid confusion by using the word "remove" instead of "abort".

I support the position that a woman should be able to remove her baby from her body. I don't support the position that a woman should be able to kill her baby after removing it from her body.
What actions? Disconnecting the child from its mother and providing care for it? Yeah--that looks just like an abortion to me! That is exactly what happens in an abortion! The doctor takes great care to remove the child from the womb, then provides care for it.
With our current state of technology, the actions of the doctor (and decisions of the mother) cause the baby to die if removed early enough from the mother.

Similarly, the actions of the doctor (and decisions of the mother) cause the 1 day old baby to die if the baby depends on the mother's body to live and the mother does not allow her baby to use the mother's body.

Both of these situations' outcomes are brought about by the actions of the doctor and the decisions of the mother. Why should one situation be legal and the other situation illegal? What do you believe is the key difference between the two situations?
No--see--cause---when someone has a virus---something is wrong. The medicine is meant to assist the body.

Pregnancy is not a disease, sir.

Sir, pregnancy is not a disease that needs to be eradicated through medical treatment. That is the difference. When a pregnancy results, nothing is going wrong with the body. Pregnancy is supposed to happen. The female body is designed for pregnancy.
Your position was that it should be legal for the mother to not allow the 1 day old child to use the mother's body. One of your reasons is because the natural course is for a child to not use the mother's body after birth. Based on what you've said about diseases, you think we should prevent things from running their natural course if they are harmful.

Is it harmful to the 1 day old child to die because they weren't allowed to use the mother's body? I think so. Based on your logic, it should be illegal for the mother to not allow the 1 day old child to use the mother's body. It seems like your logic doesn't support your position.
You catch on quick! But not ONLY because of that. Abortion should be illegal because human persons have the right--not be murdered.
You seem to be saying that the right to life is more important than the right to bodily autonomy. Is that correct? If so, the 1 day old baby's right to life is more important than the mom's right to bodily autonomy, right? This is another situation where it seems like your logic doesn't support your position.

I'm of the opposite opinion, I think it should be legal for a woman to remove (not kill) her baby no matter how she got pregnant.
I said I would concede exceptions for rape. That said, I do not believe abortion is justifiable in such a case--since---it is irrelevant how the person came to be. What matters is that they are a person.

I did! And I will say it again, in case you missed it: a life, is a life, is a life, is a life. It does not matter HOW the person came to be, what matters is that they came to be. The fact that the person came to be through rape---does not change their nature.

Yes. However, I am willing to make concessions for rape--due to the fact that the woman didn't choose to get pregnant in such a case. In other words, while I do not agree that abortion is morally justifiable in such a case, I admit, I can understand why a victim of rape would want an abortion.
I thought you only conceded rape cases due to political reasons. I understand now that you make concessions for rape for other reasons too.
 
Last edited:
I think you believe abortion is acceptable in some situations and unacceptable in other situations.

Do you believe other interruptions in the human reproductive process should be illegal? For example: condoms, birth control, etc

Bodily autonomy is a position that people should have as much control over their bodies as possible. I'm not sure what you mean when you say, "bodily autonomy includes whether there is sexual intercourse", but I'll make an attempt at answering.

How the mom became pregnant isn't a factor in the position of bodily autonomy with respect to abortion. The position of bodily autonomy addresses whether the mother should be able to legally remove permission for the baby to be in the mother's body, no matter how or why the baby was conceived.

Another way to look at this is masks and vaccines. The position of bodily autonomy addresses whether a person should be able to legally refuse to put on a mask or put a vaccine in their body, no matter the reasons of the people pushing for masks and vaccines.
If as you say bodily autonomy is where people have as much control over their bodies as possible then that would include whether they had sexual intercourse or not. You have obviously ruled that out for the convenience of the pleasure I guess. I therefore reject your claim ov bodily autonomy as a valid reason
 
If as you say bodily autonomy is where people have as much control over their bodies as possible then that would include whether they had sexual intercourse or not. You have obviously ruled that out for the convenience of the pleasure I guess. I therefore reject your claim ov bodily autonomy as a valid reason
Agree, the position of bodily autonomy supports people having sex when everyone consents.

I don't mean to be dense but I don't understand your post. What have I ruled out? What did I rule it out of? I claimed that bodily autonomy is a valid reason for what?
 
Agree, the position of bodily autonomy supports people having sex when everyone consents.

I don't mean to be dense but I don't understand your post. What have I ruled out? What did I rule it out of? I claimed that bodily autonomy is a valid reason for what?
It means people have the bodily autonomy to have unprotected consenting sex or not provided they accept the consequences. And the consequences may be conception and pregnancy.
 
It means people have the bodily autonomy to have unprotected consenting sex or not provided they accept the consequences. And the consequences may be conception and pregnancy.
Ah, I think I see what you're saying.

Your position is that the law should not support the mother's right to bodily autonomy (with respect to denying permission for her baby to use her body) when the mother consented to sex. You support this position based on your belief that by consenting to sex, the mother knew there was a chance she would get pregnant. Is that an accurate summary of your beliefs?

If that is an accurate summary of your beliefs, I have a follow-up question for you.
Suppose there is a 1 day old child that needs to use the mother's body or the child will die. The mother consented to the sex that resulted in the pregnancy of this baby. Do you believe the law should support the mother's right to bodily autonomy (with respect to denying permission for her baby to use her body) in this situation?
 
Remember that I'm asking you to think of abortion from the perspective of bodily autonomy (which is my perspective). From this perspective, abortion is removing the baby, not killing the baby. I realize this is not the commonly used definition of abortion, which is why I've attempted to avoid confusion by using the word "remove" instead of "abort".
No. You don't get to redefine terms for the sake of your personal convenience. Abortion supporters do this all the time, though they redefine abortion as "choice." You aren't doing that here, but abortion supporters do like to play around with terminology so they can obfuscate the issue.

Abortion is the direct killing of the unborn child through surgical means, chemical means, or medical means, as well as (if indicated) the removal of the parts.
I support the position that a woman should be able to remove her baby from her body. I don't support the position that a woman should be able to kill her baby after removing it from her body.
Then you don't support abortion.
With our current state of technology, the actions of the doctor (and decisions of the mother) cause the baby to die if removed early enough from the mother.
The doctor does not merely remove the child from the womb. The doctor goes in with surgical tools and punctures the child's brain. Then he sucks out the brain. The doctor then cuts up the rest of the child and sucks out the body parts. Or the doctor goes in with a syringe and chemically burns the child to death, then sucks the parts out. Or, if the child is small enough the doctor might prescribe medication to induce an abortion.

So yeah-----the actions of the doctor and decision of the mother most certainly directly cause the death of the child. When the whole point is to murder the child, it isn't surprising--that--the child dies.
Similarly, the actions of the doctor (and decisions of the mother) cause the 1 day old baby to die if the baby depends on the mother's body to live and the mother does not allow her baby to use the mother's body.
But they aren't killing the child in that example. The child is dying becasue of a disorder (if your example is even possible) not becasue the child is being aborted.
Both of these situations' outcomes are brought about by the actions of the doctor and the decisions of the mother.
When one has an abortion, a child is murdered. When a born child is disconnected from its mother but cannot survive, the child is not dying becasue the doctor slaughtered it, the child dies becasue of the disorder that causes it to die when disconnected from its mother.

Dude--you seriously cannot tell the difference between dying from a disorder vs. being slaughtered?
Why should one situation be legal and the other situation illegal?
Last I checked, dying from a disease isn't murder. Dying becasue--someone slaughtered you--is murder. Just becasue the person slaughtering you is wearing a long white lab coat, with the letters "MD" nicely engrated after the person's name on the coat lapel, and the person is doing it surgically, chemically, or medically, doesn't change what it is.
What do you believe is the key difference between the two situations?
In one case (abortion) the doctor is directly slaughtering the child. In the other case, the child is dying from a disease. Children are supposed to be able to live separated from their mothers when they are born.

Again, you seriously cannot tell the difference?
Your position was that it should be legal for the mother to not allow the 1 day old child to use the mother's body.
Because that is a disorder, a disease. Children are supposed to be disconnected from their mothers when they are born. If disconnected the child from the mother will result in its death, the child is dying from the disorder. The child is not dying becasue the doctor slaughered it.

Now, if--prior to disconnecting the child from the mother, the doctor punctures the child's skull and then sucks out its brains, then cuts the child up into pieces, that would be murder. If prior to disconnected the child from the mother, the doctor burns the child with saline solution so that it dies, that too would be murder. If after disconnecting the child, the doctor, instead of treating the child and keeping it comfortable murders the child, that too would be murder.
One of your reasons is because the natural course is for a child to not use the mother's body after birth. Based on what you've said about diseases, you think we should prevent things from running their natural course if they are harmful.
We should keep the human body in good health by treating disease. Pregnancy is not a disease.
Is it harmful to the 1 day old child to die because they weren't allowed to use the mother's body?
Ultimately yes, it is harmful to both child and mother. The child has a disorder, a disease. Something went wrong.
I think so. Based on your logic, it should be illegal for the mother to not allow the 1 day old child to use the mother's body. It seems like your logic doesn't support your position.
My logic is just fine.
You seem to be saying that the right to life is more important than the right to bodily autonomy. Is that correct?
No. No right is absolute.

For example, there are times when it is necessary to kill in self-defense. In times of war when a sovereign nation attacks another sovereign nation, nations have the right to defend themselves. Or the use of the death penalty. A criminal commits an offense so heinous, that it merits death. Note that these situations all include the taking of someone's life for regrettable but morally justifiable reasons.

In the case of a pregnancy that does not threaten the life of the mother the right to life supersedes the right to bodily autonomy. I don't understand what is so difficult about understanding this.
If so, the 1 day old baby's right to life is more important than the mom's right to bodily autonomy, right? This is another situation where it seems like your logic doesn't support your position.
No, not in that case. Children are not supposed to remain connected to their mothers after birth. Such situation would lead to medical issues for the mother. The child has a disease. Disconnect the child, treat the child to the extent possible. That is a big difference from what happens in an abortion when the whole point of the procedure is to slaughter the child.
I'm of the opposite opinion, I think it should be legal for a woman to remove (not kill) her baby no matter how she got pregnant.
Fine. As long as the child is viable, no problem.
I thought you only conceded rape cases due to political reasons. I understand now that you make concessions for rape for other reasons too.
I make concessions, yes. It doesn't mean I believe that abortion is morally justifiable, however.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMS
Ah, I think I see what you're saying.

Your position is that the law should not support the mother's right to bodily autonomy (with respect to denying permission for her baby to use her body) when the mother consented to sex. You support this position based on your belief that by consenting to sex, the mother knew there was a chance she would get pregnant. Is that an accurate summary of your beliefs?

If that is an accurate summary of your beliefs, I have a follow-up question for you.
Suppose there is a 1 day old child that needs to use the mother's body or the child will die. The mother consented to the sex that resulted in the pregnancy of this baby. Do you believe the law should support the mother's right to bodily autonomy (with respect to denying permission for her baby to use her body) in this situation?
My position is that consenting to sexual intercourse is bodily automony. Consenting to it when unprotected may lead to conception.
Bodily autonomy means no pro-choice abortion, so the answer to your first paragraph is yes.
There is no follow up question because bodily autonomy is your position.
 
No. You don't get to redefine terms for the sake of your personal convenience. Abortion supporters do this all the time, though they redefine abortion as "choice." You aren't doing that here, but abortion supporters do like to play around with terminology so they can obfuscate the issue.

Abortion is the direct killing of the unborn child through surgical means, chemical means, or medical means, as well as (if indicated) the removal of the parts.
I'm not attempting to re-define the term. I'm making the argument for my position, which is that the mother has the right to remove the baby, but does not have the right to kill the baby. I've attempted to use 'remove' instead of 'abort' in order to avoid confusion.
Then you don't support abortion.
Great! Let's focus on the positions that we do support.
The doctor does not merely remove the child from the womb. The doctor goes in with surgical tools and punctures the child's brain. Then he sucks out the brain. The doctor then cuts up the rest of the child and sucks out the body parts. Or the doctor goes in with a syringe and chemically burns the child to death, then sucks the parts out. Or, if the child is small enough the doctor might prescribe medication to induce an abortion.

So yeah-----the actions of the doctor and decision of the mother most certainly directly cause the death of the child. When the whole point is to murder the child, it isn't surprising--that--the child dies.

But they aren't killing the child in that example. The child is dying becasue of a disorder (if your example is even possible) not becasue the child is being aborted.

When one has an abortion, a child is murdered. When a born child is disconnected from its mother but cannot survive, the child is not dying becasue the doctor slaughtered it, the child dies becasue of the disorder that causes it to die when disconnected from its mother.

Dude--you seriously cannot tell the difference between dying from a disorder vs. being slaughtered?

Last I checked, dying from a disease isn't murder. Dying becasue--someone slaughtered you--is murder. Just becasue the person slaughtering you is wearing a long white lab coat, with the letters "MD" nicely engrated after the person's name on the coat lapel, and the person is doing it surgically, chemically, or medically, doesn't change what it is.

In one case (abortion) the doctor is directly slaughtering the child. In the other case, the child is dying from a disease. Children are supposed to be able to live separated from their mothers when they are born.

Again, you seriously cannot tell the difference?


Because that is a disorder, a disease. Children are supposed to be disconnected from their mothers when they are born. If disconnected the child from the mother will result in its death, the child is dying from the disorder. The child is not dying becasue the doctor slaughered it.

Now, if--prior to disconnecting the child from the mother, the doctor punctures the child's skull and then sucks out its brains, then cuts the child up into pieces, that would be murder. If prior to disconnected the child from the mother, the doctor burns the child with saline solution so that it dies, that too would be murder. If after disconnecting the child, the doctor, instead of treating the child and keeping it comfortable murders the child, that too would be murder.

We should keep the human body in good health by treating disease. Pregnancy is not a disease.

Ultimately yes, it is harmful to both child and mother. The child has a disorder, a disease. Something went wrong.

My logic is just fine.

No. No right is absolute.

For example, there are times when it is necessary to kill in self-defense. In times of war when a sovereign nation attacks another sovereign nation, nations have the right to defend themselves. Or the use of the death penalty. A criminal commits an offense so heinous, that it merits death. Note that these situations all include the taking of someone's life for regrettable but morally justifiable reasons.

In the case of a pregnancy that does not threaten the life of the mother the right to life supersedes the right to bodily autonomy. I don't understand what is so difficult about understanding this.

No, not in that case. Children are not supposed to remain connected to their mothers after birth. Such situation would lead to medical issues for the mother. The child has a disease. Disconnect the child, treat the child to the extent possible. That is a big difference from what happens in an abortion when the whole point of the procedure is to slaughter the child.
Remember I'm asking you to consider my position, not anyone else's. My position is that the mother should have the right to remove her baby, but does not have the right to kill the baby.

With our current state of technology, removing the baby too early does cause the baby's death. Because of this, we cannot support both the mother's bodily autonomy AND the baby's bodily autonomy. So what do we do?

Let's look at two situations:
  1. Child is inside mother and mother wants to remove child. If removed, the child will die.
  2. Child is outside of mother and needs mother's body in order to survive.
From my perspective, these situations are very similar because in both situations, the child needs the mother's body to survive. Because the situations are very similar, I think we should use the same logic to make legal determinations.

I support the mother's bodily autonomy in both instances. I can definitely see the argument for supporting the child's life over the mother's bodily autonomy in both instances. I don't understand supporting the mother's bodily autonomy in one instance but not the other.

I think this is where we may have hit a wall in our discussion, since we have such a core difference in our perception of those two situations.
Fine. As long as the child is viable, no problem.

I make concessions, yes. It doesn't mean I believe that abortion is morally justifiable, however.
Understood; I'm more interested in the legal side of things than the moral side of things (for this discussion).
 
My position is that consenting to sexual intercourse is bodily automony. Consenting to it when unprotected may lead to conception.
I'm interpreting this as: "BMS's position is that having consensual sex is supported by the bodily autonomy position". If that is a correct interpretation of what you wrote, then I agree!

Also agree with your second sentence.
Bodily autonomy means no pro-choice abortion, so the answer to your first paragraph is yes.
I want to be clear here since people define abortion in different ways:

The position of bodily autonomy supports the ability for a mom to remove her baby at any time for any reason. The position of bodily autonomy does not support the ability of the mom to kill her baby, ever.
There is no follow up question because bodily autonomy is your position.
(Assume that in both situations, the child needs to use its mother's body or the child will die.) It sounds like you don't support a mother's bodily autonomy when her child is inside of her. I'm wondering if you support a mother's bodily autonomy when her child is outside of her.

I think this is a valid follow-up question.
 
I'm interpreting this as: "BMS's position is that having consensual sex is supported by the bodily autonomy position". If that is a correct interpretation of what you wrote, then I agree!

Also agree with your second sentence.

I want to be clear here since people define abortion in different ways:

The position of bodily autonomy supports the ability for a mom to remove her baby at any time for any reason. The position of bodily autonomy does not support the ability of the mom to kill her baby, ever.

(Assume that in both situations, the child needs to use its mother's body or the child will die.) It sounds like you don't support a mother's bodily autonomy when her child is inside of her. I'm wondering if you support a mother's bodily autonomy when her child is outside of her.

I think this is a valid follow-up question.
Bodily autonomy means the woman has the choice to have unprotected sex or not. That is it. If she becomes pregnant she had the choice
 
Bodily autonomy means the woman has the choice to have unprotected sex or not. That is it. If she becomes pregnant she had the choice
The position of bodily autonomy is to give people as much control over their bodies as possible. I agree that this means the position of bodily autonomy supports consensual sex (protected or not).

That's just one application of the bodily autonomy position though! You can apply the same logic to many other things. For example, the position of bodily autonomy supports the following:
  1. It should be legal to refuse a vaccine, since people should be in control over what is in their body.
  2. It should be legal to eat whatever you want, since people should be in control over what is in their body.
  3. It should be legal to have consensual sex, since people should be in control over what is in their body.
  4. It should be legal for a mom to remove her unborn baby, since people should be in control over what is in their body.

I'm interested in your thoughts on applying the idea of bodily autonomy to pregnancy:

(Assume that in both situations, the child needs to use its mother's body or the child will die.) It sounds like you don't support a mother's bodily autonomy when her child is inside of her. I'm wondering if you support a mother's bodily autonomy when her child is outside of her.
 
The position of bodily autonomy is to give people as much control over their bodies as possible.
And that means the woman has the control over her body as to whether she has unprotected sex or not.

I agree that this means the position of bodily autonomy supports consensual sex (protected or not).
Obviously.

That's just one application of the bodily autonomy position though!
But that is the one that starts the human reproductive process so its the one that counts
You can apply the same logic to many other things.
one can but one cant introduce other choices at the expense of the first bodily autonomy that caused it. To do that negates the whole notion of bodily autonomy.
 
And that means the woman has the control over her body as to whether she has unprotected sex or not.

Obviously.

But that is the one that starts the human reproductive process so its the one that counts
one can but one cant introduce other choices at the expense of the first bodily autonomy that caused it. To do that negates the whole notion of bodily autonomy.
I think I understand your logic, but I disagree with it. Previous choices shouldn't prevent a person from exercising their right to bodily autonomy.

For example, suppose a person agrees to implant an experimental pacemaker. There is a risk that the pacemaker will cause issues with the person's heart, but the person agrees to implant it anyway. A couple months later, the pacemaker malfunctions and the person wants to remove the pacemaker from their body. The person previously made a choice to implant the device and understood the risk of malfunction. Should that previous decision effect if the person should be allowed to exercise their right to bodily autonomy and remove the pacemaker?
 
I think I understand your logic, but I disagree with it. Previous choices shouldn't prevent a person from exercising their right to bodily autonomy.

For example, suppose a person agrees to implant an experimental pacemaker. There is a risk that the pacemaker will cause issues with the person's heart, but the person agrees to implant it anyway. A couple months later, the pacemaker malfunctions and the person wants to remove the pacemaker from their body. The person previously made a choice to implant the device and understood the risk of malfunction. Should that previous decision effect if the person should be allowed to exercise their right to bodily autonomy and remove the pacemaker?
A pacemaker isnt a new human life.
I would reject bodily autonomy as a pretext.
 
A pacemaker isnt a new human life.
I would reject bodily autonomy as a pretext.
I think we're using different definitions of bodily autonomy.

I'm using the commonly accepted definition of bodily autonomy, which is that we should give people as much control over their bodies as possible.

What is your definition of the bodily autonomy?
 
Back
Top