Choice

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.
Fine. So we are clear: nor does the doctor.
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?
Nothing! We do nothing! We allow the child to live. That is what we do. When the child reaches a state in development that living outside the womb is possible, the doctor can remove the child from the womb if the woman doesn't want the child, the child can receive medical care, and then placed up for adoption.
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.
No, we shouldn't. It is apples and oranges. Once a child is viable, that means it can and should be able to survive outside the womb. Children are supposed to be disconnected from their mothers. They aren't designed to remain forever connected. If they cannot survive disconnected from their mother after the point of viability, then there is a disorder. It is that disorder that is killing them.

For the 100th time:

In an abortion, there is nothing wrong. There is no disorder. The child is not dying. The only thing "wrong" is that a woman is pregnant and doesn't want to be. The woman goes to the doctor and orders the doctor to "terminate" the pregnancy. The doctor happily obliges. Depending on stage of development, he might prescribe a medication that will kill the child, or he might burn the child with saline, cut the child up into pieces and then evacuate them from the womb, or puncture the child's skull, suck out the brains, and cut the child up, and evacuate the child from the womb.

In cases that are even more abominable, if something goes wrong and the child actually survives becasue the doctor didn't correctly slaughter the child, the child will be placed on a gurney until it dies. There will be no health care given, people will be forbidden to do anything for the child.

Whatever option the doctor chooses, note that the child is not dying, there is nothing wrong, the pregnancy does not threaten the woman's life, etc. Ultimately, the only thing wrong is that the woman is pregnant and for many and varied reasons--doesn't want to be. The solution is that the doctor slaughters the child in the name of "choice" "health care" and "reproductive freedom." Note that in this case, it is the choice of the mother and the doctor's subsequent actions that are a DIRECT result of the death of the child.

In the hypothetical case you give where a child is born, but will die if disconnected from the mother, cannot survive if it is disconnected, the child has a disorder. Something is wrong. The mother has nothing to do with the disorder. The mother didn't cause the disorder. The doctor has nothing to do with the disorder. The child is is dying, the child does not have the disorder becasue of anything the mother or doctor did or choose. In disconnecting the child from the mother, the doctor is not murdering the child, but allowing the disease the child has to take its natural progression. The disease, not the doctor is directly responsible for the death of the child. Note also, that the doctor would treat the child in so far as is medically possible, keeping it hydrated, comfortable, etc. When the child dies, the disease is what killed it---not abortion.
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.
In one instance, the child is slaughtered. There is a DIRECT and NECESSARY connection between the choice of the mother and the subsequent actions of the doctor.

In the second instance, the child is dying from a disease. The mother and doctor have nothing to do with the child's condition. The child is dying from the disease, not from the "choice" of the mother and then the doctor who slaughters the child on orders from the mother.
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.
Did we "hit a wall" or do you just not want to see the glaring and obvious difference between the two scenarios?
Understood; I'm more interested in the legal side of things than the moral side of things (for this discussion).
I don't think morality can be separated from the legality. I know the left loves to bleat that you cannot legislate morality. The problem is that we do it all the time. In the very act of fighting to keep abortion legal, the left is attempting imposing a moral system.

The question isn't "Whether we can legislate morality," the question is "Whose moral systems are going to win out in politics?"
 
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.
When those choices are a direct result of the situation they are in--it should.

We cannot have freedom without responsibility, choice without consequences. This is something the left does not grasp.

Actions have consequences, choices have consequences.
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?
Um------a pacemaker is not a living human being with a right to life.

Last I checked, the pacemaker has no rights. It is a pacemaker. A pacemaker does not have the right to bodily autonomy.
 
Fine. So we are clear: nor does the doctor.

Nothing! We do nothing! We allow the child to live. That is what we do. When the child reaches a state in development that living outside the womb is possible, the doctor can remove the child from the womb if the woman doesn't want the child, the child can receive medical care, and then placed up for adoption.

No, we shouldn't. It is apples and oranges. Once a child is viable, that means it can and should be able to survive outside the womb. Children are supposed to be disconnected from their mothers. They aren't designed to remain forever connected. If they cannot survive disconnected from their mother after the point of viability, then there is a disorder. It is that disorder that is killing them.

For the 100th time:

In an abortion, there is nothing wrong. There is no disorder. The child is not dying. The only thing "wrong" is that a woman is pregnant and doesn't want to be. The woman goes to the doctor and orders the doctor to "terminate" the pregnancy. The doctor happily obliges. Depending on stage of development, he might prescribe a medication that will kill the child, or he might burn the child with saline, cut the child up into pieces and then evacuate them from the womb, or puncture the child's skull, suck out the brains, and cut the child up, and evacuate the child from the womb.

In cases that are even more abominable, if something goes wrong and the child actually survives becasue the doctor didn't correctly slaughter the child, the child will be placed on a gurney until it dies. There will be no health care given, people will be forbidden to do anything for the child.

Whatever option the doctor chooses, note that the child is not dying, there is nothing wrong, the pregnancy does not threaten the woman's life, etc. Ultimately, the only thing wrong is that the woman is pregnant and for many and varied reasons--doesn't want to be. The solution is that the doctor slaughters the child in the name of "choice" "health care" and "reproductive freedom." Note that in this case, it is the choice of the mother and the doctor's subsequent actions that are a DIRECT result of the death of the child.

In the hypothetical case you give where a child is born, but will die if disconnected from the mother, cannot survive if it is disconnected, the child has a disorder. Something is wrong. The mother has nothing to do with the disorder. The mother didn't cause the disorder. The doctor has nothing to do with the disorder. The child is is dying, the child does not have the disorder becasue of anything the mother or doctor did or choose. In disconnecting the child from the mother, the doctor is not murdering the child, but allowing the disease the child has to take its natural progression. The disease, not the doctor is directly responsible for the death of the child. Note also, that the doctor would treat the child in so far as is medically possible, keeping it hydrated, comfortable, etc. When the child dies, the disease is what killed it---not abortion.

In one instance, the child is slaughtered. There is a DIRECT and NECESSARY connection between the choice of the mother and the subsequent actions of the doctor.

In the second instance, the child is dying from a disease. The mother and doctor have nothing to do with the child's condition. The child is dying from the disease, not from the "choice" of the mother and then the doctor who slaughters the child on orders from the mother.

Did we "hit a wall" or do you just not want to see the glaring and obvious difference between the two scenarios?
I'll try to be more clear about what I meant by "hit a wall".

I support the idea that people should have as much control as possible over their bodies. This means I think people should make their own choices about their own body, even when I disagree with those choices. Even when those choices have difficult consequences.

For example, it should be legal to refuse to take a vaccine. Even though I think everyone should take vaccines; even though not taking vaccines can cause death and suffering of others.

(for context, here's the 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.
I understand your position about the difference between these two situations. There are lots of differences! I don't think the differences warrant creating a special exception in my support for the idea that people should have as much control as possible over their bodies. I support bodily autonomy in both situations. I support the mother's right to remove her baby and I support the baby's right to survive (if possible) outside of the mother. The mother's right to bodily autonomy should not be revoked due to our lack of sufficient technology to support the baby outside the mother.

You do think the differences in the situations warrant creating a special exception in your support for bodily autonomy. I don't think the differences in the situations warrant creating a special exception in my support for bodily autonomy. That is the wall that I believe we have hit in our discussion.
I don't think morality can be separated from the legality. I know the left loves to bleat that you cannot legislate morality. The problem is that we do it all the time. In the very act of fighting to keep abortion legal, the left is attempting imposing a moral system.

The question isn't "Whether we can legislate morality," the question is "Whose moral systems are going to win out in politics?"
I agree with that. Different laws probably align with different people's moral systems. I'm not sure how that's related to our discussion though. I'm interested in whether you think certain actions should be legal, not if you think these actions are moral.
 
Last edited:
A pacemaker isnt a new human life.
I would reject bodily autonomy as a pretext.
no, same definition, you gave it and I agree. The woman has bodily autonomy to decide whether she gets pregnant.
It seems like you generally support bodily autonomy, but are making a special exception when it comes to a mother who had consensual sex and is pregnant. In the situation where the mother had consensual sex and is pregnant, you believe it should be illegal for the mother to refuse use of her body to her child. Is that correct?

If so, does the special exception (it should be illegal for a mother to refuse use of her body to her child) continue when after the child is born?

For example, should it be legal for the mother to refuse use of her body to her child in either of these 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 to use mother's body in order to survive.
 
It seems like you generally support bodily autonomy, but are making a special exception when it comes to a mother who had consensual sex and is pregnant.
on the contrary, bodily autonomy is your proposal. Are you saying a woman doesnt have bodily autonomy or control over her body with consensual sex?

You seem to either be denying that is bodily autonomy or overlooking it hence the rest of your points
 
on the contrary, bodily autonomy is your proposal. Are you saying a woman doesnt have bodily autonomy or control over her body with consensual sex?

You seem to either be denying that is bodily autonomy or overlooking it hence the rest of your points
No, I believe allowing people to have consensual sex aligns with the position of bodily autonomy. I support the position of bodily autonomy, which means I also support allowing people to have consensual sex.

If that's still unclear: A woman having consensual sex has control over her body (with respect to having sex). Let me know if my position is still unclear.

You seem to support the mom's ability to remove her baby (which aligns with the position of bodily autonomy) for the following situations. That is why I said, "It seems like you generally support bodily autonomy".
  • The baby's life is not harmed
  • The mother was raped
  • The mother is in danger of death due to the pregnancy

I'm still curious on your thoughts about this:
It seems like you generally support bodily autonomy, but are making a special exception when it comes to a mother who had consensual sex and is pregnant. In the situation where the mother had consensual sex and is pregnant, you believe it should be illegal for the mother to refuse use of her body to her child. Is that correct?

If so, does the special exception (it should be illegal for a mother to refuse use of her body to her child) continue after the child is born?

For example, should it be legal for the mother to refuse use of her body to her child in either of these 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 to use mother's body in order to survive.
 
No, I believe allowing people to have consensual sex aligns with the position of bodily autonomy. I support the position of bodily autonomy, which means I also support allowing people to have consensual sex.
Ok fine

You seem to support the mom's ability to remove her baby
Let me stop you there. She had the bodily autonomy as to whether to have sex, particularly unprotected sex. now you are ignoring that and looking at the consequences. The consequences means she no longer has bodily autonomy, conception doesnt subsequently occur by choice. If she cant take the consequences for here bodily autonomy that resulted in conception she cant then claim she should have bodily autonomy for the consequences.
 
Ok fine

Let me stop you there. She had the bodily autonomy as to whether to have sex, particularly unprotected sex. now you are ignoring that and looking at the consequences. The consequences means she no longer has bodily autonomy, conception doesnt subsequently occur by choice. If she cant take the consequences for here bodily autonomy that resulted in conception she cant then claim she should have bodily autonomy for the consequences.
Right, I understand your belief about consequences.

Does your belief about consequences continue after the baby is delivered?

For example: If the woman is pregnant from consensual sex, then you believe it should be illegal for the mother to deny the baby use of the mother's body. Once the baby is delivered, do you continue to believe it should be illegal for the mother to deny the baby use of the mother's body?
 
Right, I understand your belief about consequences.
But do you understand? Since bodily autonomy is about choosing what happens to one's body, if one has chosen to become pregnant then to abort makes the choice meaningless. You are not only denying it was really a choice, but you are denying what the choice was about
 
But do you understand? Since bodily autonomy is about choosing what happens to one's body, if one has chosen to become pregnant then to abort makes the choice meaningless. You are not only denying it was really a choice, but you are denying what the choice was about
I don't think I am. I'm trying to determine your beliefs.

Suppose the woman does not abort the baby and the baby is born normally. However, after the delivery, it turns out the baby needs to use the mother's body in order to survive. In this situation, do you believe it should be illegal for the mother to deny the baby use of the mother's body?
 
I don't think I am. I'm trying to determine your beliefs.
No you aren't, I have been giving you my beliefs and not only have you not been addressing them either acknowledging or refuting, you have continually been asking me questions presumably to try and determine something other than what I have told you or you prefer

Suppose the woman does not abort the baby and the baby is born normally. However, after the delivery, it turns out the baby needs to use the mother's body in order to survive. In this situation, do you believe it should be illegal for the mother to deny the baby use of the mother's body?
Again, those are the consequences of the bodily autonomy of becoming pregnant. Conception and pregnancy are the human reproductive process, your question implies the consequences are somehow a choice.
 
No you aren't, I have been giving you my beliefs and not only have you not been addressing them either acknowledging or refuting, you have continually been asking me questions presumably to try and determine something other than what I have told you or you prefer
I think I understand your beliefs about consequence of becoming pregnant. You're right that I don't agree with it, but I do understand it.
Again, those are the consequences of the bodily autonomy of becoming pregnant. Conception and pregnancy are the human reproductive process, your question implies the consequences are somehow a choice.
From what you've said here, it seems like you do think it should be illegal for a woman to deny her baby the use of the mother's body after the baby is born. You think it should be illegal because that is the consequence of becoming pregnant. Is that accurate?
 
I think I understand your beliefs about consequence of becoming pregnant. You're right that I don't agree with it, but I do understand it.
I don't think so because the consequences are inherent in the bodily autonomy. Since the bodily autonomy is the woman choosing what happens to her body, having sexual intercourse and becoming pregnant was her choice and her decision what happens to her body.
 
I don't think so because the consequences are inherent in the bodily autonomy. Since the bodily autonomy is the woman choosing what happens to her body, having sexual intercourse and becoming pregnant was her choice and her decision what happens to her body.
Right, so let's extend that logic to post-pregnancy. What are your thoughts on the question below?

It seems like you do think it should be illegal for a woman to deny her baby the use of the mother's body after the baby is born. You think it should be illegal because that is a consequence of becoming pregnant. Is that accurate?
 
Right, so let's extend that logic to post-pregnancy. What are your thoughts on the question below?
so you undetstand then that pregnancy is s result of your bodily autonomy? There is no point in thinking one can apply what isnt understood.

It seems like you do think it should be illegal for a woman to deny her baby the use of the mother's body after the baby is born. You think it should be illegal because that is a consequence of becoming pregnant. Is that accurate?
what do you mean by the use of? Give an example.
 
so you undetstand then that pregnancy is s result of your bodily autonomy? There is no point in thinking one can apply what isnt understood.
Yes, I understand.
what do you mean by the use of? Give an example.
Here are some examples:
  1. The baby needs to filter blood through the mother because the baby's kidney isn't working properly yet. The doctor thinks it should take about a month with little risk to the mother's life.
  2. The baby needs to filter blood through the mother because the baby's kidney isn't working properly yet. The doctor thinks it should take about a year with little risk to the mother's life.
  3. The baby needs to filter blood through the mother because the baby's kidney isn't working properly yet. The doctor thinks it should take about a month with high risk to the mother's life.
  4. The baby needs to filter blood through the mother because the baby's kidney isn't working properly yet. The doctor thinks it should take about a year with high risk to the mother's life.
  5. The baby needs to filter blood through the mother because the baby's kidney isn't working properly yet. There is no known cure, so it would need to be permanent. There is a high risk to the mother's life.
 
Yes, I understand.

Here are some examples:
  1. The baby needs to filter blood through the mother because the baby's kidney isn't working properly yet. The doctor thinks it should take about a month with little risk to the mother's life.
  2. The baby needs to filter blood through the mother because the baby's kidney isn't working properly yet. The doctor thinks it should take about a year with little risk to the mother's life.
  3. The baby needs to filter blood through the mother because the baby's kidney isn't working properly yet. The doctor thinks it should take about a month with high risk to the mother's life.
  4. The baby needs to filter blood through the mother because the baby's kidney isn't working properly yet. The doctor thinks it should take about a year with high risk to the mother's life.
  5. The baby needs to filter blood through the mother because the baby's kidney isn't working properly yet. There is no known cure, so it would need to be permanent. There is a high risk to the mother's life.
Well the mother has used her bodily autonomy and chosen to produce an offspring. Why wouldnt she?
 
Well the mother has used her bodily autonomy and chosen to produce an offspring. Why wouldnt she?
Got it. Let's expand on that logic.

Suppose it's the same situations as below except the baby needs to filter blood through the father, not the mother. Do you feel the same way? (that it should be illegal for the father to deny his baby the use of the father's body?




leaving this for reference:
  1. The baby needs to filter blood through the mother because the baby's kidney isn't working properly yet. The doctor thinks it should take about a month with little risk to the mother's life.
  2. The baby needs to filter blood through the mother because the baby's kidney isn't working properly yet. The doctor thinks it should take about a year with little risk to the mother's life.
  3. The baby needs to filter blood through the mother because the baby's kidney isn't working properly yet. The doctor thinks it should take about a month with high risk to the mother's life.
  4. The baby needs to filter blood through the mother because the baby's kidney isn't working properly yet. The doctor thinks it should take about a year with high risk to the mother's life.
  5. The baby needs to filter blood through the mother because the baby's kidney isn't working properly yet. There is no known cure, so it would need to be permanent. There is a high risk to the mother's life.
 
Got it. Let's expand on that logic.

Suppose it's the same situations as below except the baby needs to filter blood through the father, not the mother. Do you feel the same way? (that it should be illegal for the father to deny his baby the use of the father's body?




leaving this for reference:
  1. The baby needs to filter blood through the mother because the baby's kidney isn't working properly yet. The doctor thinks it should take about a month with little risk to the mother's life.
  2. The baby needs to filter blood through the mother because the baby's kidney isn't working properly yet. The doctor thinks it should take about a year with little risk to the mother's life.
  3. The baby needs to filter blood through the mother because the baby's kidney isn't working properly yet. The doctor thinks it should take about a month with high risk to the mother's life.
  4. The baby needs to filter blood through the mother because the baby's kidney isn't working properly yet. The doctor thinks it should take about a year with high risk to the mother's life.
  5. The baby needs to filter blood through the mother because the baby's kidney isn't working properly yet. There is no known cure, so it would need to be permanent. There is a high risk to the mother's life.
I asked why wouldnt she. Are you saying she should?
 
Back
Top