Bodily Autonomy is not a good argument for abortion for most people

Author: WyIted
Abortion
personhood
pro choice
pro life
bodily autonomy

Posts

Total: 54
#31
baggins
baggins's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 108
1
3
9
baggins's avatar
baggins
1
3
9
-->
@WyIted
Put in a prompt to make it as concise if possible if you can please.
Do you mean my last long post?

Sorry i just wanted to make sure you were in fact a human.
No issues, it’s understandable. I like using AI as a self teaching tool to improve my vocabulary and present the best possible version of my arguments. The original drafts of my arguments are long enough so when I tell AI to improve the language I can see how it becomes too much and it might look not human. 

conflating bodily autonomy with self ownership.
Can you please clarify the mistake you think you made. They sound like almost the same thing to me or maybe I’m just misunderstanding something. 
Topic's author
#32
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 6,881
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@baggins
Can you please clarify the mistake you think you made. They sound like almost the same thing to me or maybe I’m just misunderstanding something.
Yes so bodily autonomy would essentially mean I can do whatever i want with my body. 

Self ownership goes a bit further. It not only would imply bodily autonomy it would mean i am not subject to government requirements on me such as taxation because i own my labor and taking the product of my labor amounts to theft. 

Technically bodily autonomy doesn't need to mean I own my body. I could do whatever I want and the government could still tax me on what I did and it wouldn't get in the way of my autonomy. 


Topic's author
#33
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 6,881
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
I think In general liberals would value autonomy quite highly if you exclude the woke and conservatives would place a higher value on self ownership
#34
baggins
baggins's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 108
1
3
9
baggins's avatar
baggins
1
3
9
-->
@WyIted
Regarding your number 29 and number 30 posts. 

I got really confused. 

ChatGpT seems to rebut your arguments in almost the same way I did and I don’t see any improvements just adding more details with examples but keeping the same logic. 

Also; 

However you haven't really explained why your ideal of what that covert contract entails is more accurate than mine.
I don’t think consenting to sexual activity logically entails consenting to pregnancy or parenthood . What do you think about my gym analogy?. You just take a chance and if something unwanted happens then that’s a separate issue. Sex is not just for procreation. You can’t reasonably think that consenting to sex is signing any kind of contract about parenthood. It’s signing a contract that says “Hey we are going to risk conception, hopefully we take all precautions but theres never 100% guarantees” 
#35
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,372
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
I also dislike the "my body, my right" argument. It's just very in your face. But fair enough, it comes from some sort of place of fear and hurt that I as a man am lucky not to know.

Forcing a girl to carry a pregnancy she does not want is still a very fucking extreme thing if you bother to actually think about it. You are handing down a literal life sentence if you want. Get it? And that's after all the crazy shit that happens to her body, the very extreme thing that is birthing a child. And then she's stuck with GP's baby or some other human travesty.

Nipping all that in the bud when it's only a few cells doesn't seem like a big deal. Punishing humans for fucking seems a bit cruel. 
#36
vi_777
vi_777's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 101
0
3
6
vi_777's avatar
vi_777
0
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
@Best.Korea
@Shila
@baggins
@WyIted
@Best.Korea, @WyIted, @baggins, @Shila, @Greyparrot, @zedvictor4, @Savant
since the topic is under discussion, could u guys go to this debate n vote?
#37
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,498
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@WyIted
Let's examine the bodily autonomy argument alone.
But you never did. You laid out the argument in syllogistic form, then talked about how other groups might see it. No where did you actually explain why you think the argument fails with regards to abortion, then you went on to argue why pro-choicers aren't consistent in other areas. I fail to see what this "analysis" accomplishes.

A consistent belief in bodily autonomy would not support vaccine mandates or forced mask wearing.
Those are completely different things. No one was pinned down and forced to get vaccinated, it was a requirement *if* you decided to join the work force and expose yourself to other people. Again, of the freedom to swing your arms ends at someone else's nose, that's perfectly consistent.

The mask wearing argument is too silly to even take seriously. That's like me saying it's a violation of my bodily autonomy to force me to cover up my genitals in the presence of children.

Income is derived from labor and it is income from this labor that is taxed. This means that at least some of the time you do not have the self ownership that is required to claim you have bodily autonomy. If you work 10 hours and the money from 1 of those hours goes to taxes, than the government owned your body for that hour.
Owing someone money does not = they owned your body. Your only requirement is to provide the money, how you got it is your choice. That is not comparable to telling a woman that her uterus must be utilized an in incubation chamber for another human being.
Topic's author
#38
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 6,881
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
You misunderstood the entire argument. Your IQ is showing
Topic's author
#39
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 6,881
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
But you never did. You laid out the argument in syllogistic form, then talked about how other groups might see it. No where did you actually explain why you think the argument fails with regards to abortion, then you went on to argue why pro-choicers aren't consistent in other areas. I fail to see what this "analysis" accomplishes.
Because I never said it failed. What is the argument I made? It was about the inconsistency of it and I pointed out the inconsistency does not apply to everyone making it, 

Those are completely different things. No one was pinned down and forced to get vaccinated, it was a requirement *if* you decided to join the work force and expose yourself to other people. Again, of the freedom to swing your arms ends at someone else's nose, that's perfectly consistent.
??????????????????????

The mask wearing argument is too silly to even take seriously. That's like me saying it's a violation of my bodily autonomy to force me to cover up my genitals in the presence of children.
It literally does violate your bodily autonomy to force you to cover your genitals in front of children, its why leftists and libertarians who hold consistent views on bodily autonomy typically oppose laws forcing women to cover their tits

Owing someone money does not = they owned your body. Your only requirement is to provide the money, how you got it is your choice. That is not comparable to telling a woman that her uterus must be utilized an in incubation chamber for another human being.
Now you are confusing self ownership with bodily autonomy, but yes forced labor is a violation of self ownership. You can say "well you get to choose how your body is enslaved" but it would violate the concept of self ownership. I will give you a pass here though since I was conflating self ownership with bodily autonomy and bodily autonomy can exist independent of self ownership
#40
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,498
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@WyIted
Those are completely different things. No one was pinned down and forced to get vaccinated, it was a requirement *if* you decided to join the work force and expose yourself to other people. Again, of the freedom to swing your arms ends at someone else's nose, that's perfectly consistent.
??????????????????????
What part did you not understand?

It literally does violate your bodily autonomy to force you to cover your genitals in front of children
That is not a definition of bodily autonomy that any reasonable person would use.

You're talking about complying with a set of rules as a condition of being in a particular space. The violation (exposing yourself to children) is itself an action one must take. If you don't want to engage in that then don't leave your house. You have a choice, that's called bodily autonomy.

You can say "well you get to choose how your body is enslaved" but it would violate the concept of self ownership.
Self ownership taken to its extreme is a logical impossibility. The idea is that one has complete control not just over what happens within its body, but what it gets to use its body to do. So if I get to do as I wish that means I get to pick up this knife and stab you with it, an obvious violation of your right to life. Conflict is inevitable there, so it cannot exist without exceptions.

All of this is fundamentally different than forcing a woman to carry her fetus to terms. The pregnant woman doesn't have the choice to stay home to avoid having to be pregnant. She doesn't get to take it off when she gets into her car. Her condition, the thing that triggers her forceful compliance, is simply existing. Being told you must wear a mask to enter a grocery store is nothing remotely like that.
#41
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@WyIted
Yes, The principle most libertarians would say is that your bodily autonomy ends where your fist meets my face.

And abortion is a powerful gut punch.
Topic's author
#42
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 6,881
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
What part did you not understand?
How any of that applies to this thread when I already mentioned exceptions like those who want social controls 

That is not a definition of bodily autonomy that any reasonable person would use.
I literally gave the definition at the beginning of the thread I was using and I pulled it from a pro choice group.

. If you don't want to engage in that then don't leave your house. You have a choice, that's called bodily autonomy.
This doesn't work for the same reason as saying "if you don't want to get pregnant don't have sex"

Self ownership taken to its extreme is a logical impossibility.
I haven't defended self ownership in this thread or from my memory any thread.

Being told you must wear a mask to enter a grocery store is nothing remotely like that.
The only actual criticism you have made but I think it fails if you consider the fetus a person because if wearing a mask to protect the health of others is fair than telling a woman to carry a baby until birth as long as it is safe to do so to save a human life seems fair. 

If you don't see the fetus as a person than this thread is not for you or criticizing your views. Because if pro life people agreed with the not a person argument than most of them would be pro choice. There is of course exceptions. 

This thread is simply about the hypocrisy pointed out and you are correct that the tax example was a poor one
Topic's author
#43
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 6,881
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
Actually I should say soft social controls like shame or some businesses requiring masks without being forced to
#44
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,498
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@WyIted
That is not a definition of bodily autonomy that any reasonable person would use.
I literally gave the definition at the beginning of the thread
And the definition you gave does not fit into the example you provided.

"*Bodily Autonomy refers to each person’s right to make decisions about their own body, without coercion or limits imposed by outside forces*"

Your argument was that being forced to cover up ones genitals violates this, it doesn't. Making decisions about your body does not mean you get to do whatever you want with it, especially to and around other people.

If you don't want to engage in that then don't leave your house. You have a choice, that's called bodily autonomy.
This doesn't work for the same reason as saying "if you don't want to get pregnant don't have sex"
These are not similar examples. You're invoking a causality argument to justify adverse consequences, that has nothing to do with it. The justification for enforcing one to cover their genitals is that they are actively choosing to be in a space where they are around others and are therefore subject to the rules that apply. Pregnancy isn't an activity, nor can you cut it on and off as you choose. That's very different.

Self ownership taken to its extreme is a logical impossibility.
I haven't defended self ownership in this thread or from my memory any thread.
I wasn't attacking any defense of self ownership, I was drawing the contrast for clarity.

The only actual criticism you have made but I think it fails if you consider the fetus a person because if wearing a mask to protect the health of others is fair than telling a woman to carry a baby until birth as long as it is safe to do so to save a human life seems fair. 
Whether it's fair is a different question, and yes the personhood question plays a large role in that. It's why I often say that abortion debates are futile until we can agree on whether and/or at what point the fetus is a person because we will probably never see eye to eye on anything that follows till that is resolved. But what you are pointing to here is hypocrisy, which is why the self ownership vs bodily autonomy distinction is important.

In addition to the arguments I've already offered, if you are looking for the biggest reason why your mask or vaccine arguments are fundamentally different I would ask you to think about a simple question; if an inmate was suffering from a medical condition for which treatment was available and practical, would it not be incumbent upon us to provide it? The answer according to every civilized developed nation on earth is a clear yes. This is why we offer medical care to inmates.

So even in any scenario where a person's actions were deemed so egregious and so irresponsible that we found it justifiable to remove their freedom, we still do not force them to endure the suffering that comes along with any ailment within their bodies. That is the literal difference between punishment and torture.

Forcing a woman to go through the physical discomfort, pain, and risk to their own heath and life of creating another human being, when done against their will, is in fact torture on a scale well worse than what we have put some terrorists through. It's not a joke.

And what's worse is that the justification offered for this enforced torture is the fact that the woman had the audacity to engage in one of the most basic human activities there is. We are literally programmed biologically to desire sex, so punishing someone simply for giving into that desire is absurd.

And all of that is before considering the fact that it isn't even the woman who was in control, the man is the one who ultimately had to make the decision and is the one who acts out on the first step of creating a baby, so the woman's involvement in that decision is minimal at the outset.

Now I get that the issue is complicated, the counter balance if you believe in life at conception is another life so I never said it was easy, but what it is not is hypercritical. Forcing someone to use their body to make another human being is not comparable in any way at all to forcing someone to wear a mask.
Topic's author
#45
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 6,881
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
Making decisions about your body does not mean you get to do whatever you want with it, especially to and around other people.
That's literally what it means. 

As for you tangent at the end, it's irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it's like mask mandates. 

It's about whether there is consistency with the bodily autonomy argument. 

Now if you are saying there are other things to balance like the toll it takes on a woman or because it's not something you can easily cut on or off that's a different argument that has nothing to do with bodily autonomy. 

Remember I am not arguing a position here. I am pointing out an inconsistency in the arguments some liberals use (not all pro choice liberals)

For my personal opinion I would ban abortions outside of the first trimester unless the woman and the doctor agreed it's best to abort for medical reasons. I consider that a pro life stance, many would call it pro choice, but every single pro life state makes exceptions for the health of the mother so that's why ai say I am pro life. 

This isn't about my opinion though this is examining a specific argument by specific people. 

I also explained that not all liberals are inconsistent with the bodily autonomy argument to avoid going off topic like has been done here.
Topic's author
#46
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 6,881
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
I get that you are saying bodily auto only is important. Everyone agrees bodily autonomy is important. This discussion is about whether it's good enough as the sole premise of an argument for pro choice which is how a lot of liberals use the argument. So this is not to discount or disprove the argument on bodily auto only but examining if it's consistent in a good amount of people.
#47
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,248
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
Yes, The principle most libertarians would say is that your bodily autonomy ends where your fist meets my face.

And abortion is a powerful gut punch.
What if your face got in the way of my fist?
#48
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@WyIted
There are 2 ways to abort a pregnancy, birth or surgery.
#49
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,248
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
There are 2 ways to abort a pregnancy, birth or surgery.
You forgot medical abortion.
The most common regimen involves taking two pills — mifepristone and misoprostol. Mifepristone blocks progesterone, the hormone needed to support a pregnancy. Misoprostol causes cramping and bleeding to empty your uterus. A medical abortion is a nonsurgical way to terminate a pregnancy in the first trimester.
#50
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,498
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@WyIted
Making decisions about your body does not mean you get to do whatever you want with it, especially to and around other people.
That's literally what it means. 
So is it a violation of my bodily autonomy to tell me I can't stabb you?

As for you tangent at the end, it's irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it's like mask mandates. 

It's about whether there is consistency with the bodily autonomy argument.
How do you not see the logical contradiction in this?  

To show an inconsistency you need to show how two similar examples are treated differently. If they're not simmilar to each other (as in they're not alike) then comparing them accomplishes nothing.

 I am not arguing a position here. I am pointing out an inconsistency in the arguments some liberals use
Then address the counter argument I made. Don't just sit there saying "it's irrelevant" and move on.

Do you understand the difference between punishment and torture? Do you understand why that difference leads to different results with regards to how we treat people? Do you understand how that difference applies to pregnancy vs literally every other example you gave?
Topic's author
#51
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 6,881
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
So is it a violation of my bodily autonomy to tell me I can't stabb you?
Yes it does violate bodily autonomy to ban stabbings, how it was defined. Remember the argument is that bodily autonomy is a good enough argument on it's own to defend the pro choice position. 

By saying stabbing is bad then we are back to valuing human life over bodily autonomy, which would put them in the pro life camp. 

Remember this thread is about people who solely use the bodily autonomy argument. Which is probably going to be most of the left going by what's in my Twitter feed. 

To show an inconsistency you need to show how two similar examples are treated differently. If they're not simmilar to each other (as in they're not alike) then comparing them accomplishes nothing.
What? no LOL.

When you examine the principles of an argument you always use an extreme example to see if the principles a person is using is appropriate. 

Here is a fair criticism of the pro life argument if you agree with personhood but are pro choice.

Say that you are a doctor in a hospital. You have 5 patients on the verge of death and you are in the middle of nowhere with no contact with the outside world. These 5 patients can be cured with an organ donation of 5 different organs.

Now a healthy person walks through the door of the hospital which you just so happen to know is a match for all 5 people. Do you kill him to save the other 5 lives?

If the person says no you can then say "so you admit it, bodily autonomy  is more important than preservation of life"

If they say yes they would sacrifice the man than there is no inconsistency with their principles. If they say no than they will have to admit their argument is wrong and come up with a more nuanced argument. 

It's the same thing with solely using the bodily autonomy argument. If you find an example no matter how extreme of bodily autonomy being something they think is bad, such as thinking it's unethical to stop a stabbing, than they have to if they are arguing in good faith change their argument, even if their new argument supports the same position.
Topic's author
#52
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 6,881
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
This is  how philosophers argue to figure out how to create a consistent set of principles.
#53
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,498
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@WyIted
Yes it does violate bodily autonomy to ban stabbings
That is cartoonishly ridiculous.

All you're doing here is redefining a term to render it totally and completely meaningless, then using its meaninglessness as an argument against the position you disagree with. It is an egregiously dishonest tactic.

Going back to the actual definition, making decisions "about ones body" does not = deciding that someone cannot use their body to pick up a knife. That's just basic English, there's no point in debating that further. And even if there were it still wouldn't matter because you're criticizing the position of other people. If you're going to do that honestly then you need to use their definitions, not yours. That's how communication works.

To show an inconsistency you need to show how two similar examples are treated differently. If they're not simmilar to each other (as in they're not alike) then comparing them accomplishes nothing.
What? no LOL.
Yeah you're just not speaking English. Google the definition of inconsistency, then do the same for similar and alike.

It's the same thing with solely using the bodily autonomy argument. If you find an example no matter how extreme of bodily autonomy being something they think is bad, such as thinking it's unethical to stop a stabbing, than they have to if they are arguing in good faith change their argument, even if their new argument supports the same position.
You lost me here.


Topic's author
#54
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 6,881
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
You lost me here.
No offense but that is really sad. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt of maybe having some sort of mental block, but it appears you IQ is definitely below 120. If I probably and 110. 

This could be why there is a communication gap here and why you struggle to understand the op and still think the argument is against the bodily autonomy position when it's not and then you fail to understand the bodily auto only argument despite both using the argument and having a left wing source who has defined the term. 

I don't want to hurt your feelings but I don't know that you are capable of deep independent thought. 

So when you look at how evolution works, the most evolutionarily adaptive thing for a species such as humans who require group cooperation to do is to take on what they perceive as the dominant belief system of a their tribe. 

For low IQ people, they aren't really that suited to take advantage of or have that many evolutionarily advantageous traits so they will often not take on the dominant belief system and fall for things like credentialism.  These are generally going to be people below an 85 IQ. However the midwit has the opposite problem. They have an IQ between 85-120 and see the evolutionary advantage of adapting to the dominant belief system. You see them often study hard and make As by memorizing facts and often they will be confused at why they have lower scores than some kids in the class who are slackers but perform superior to them in tests. 

So a midwife for example to display intelligence may give you a bunch of facts they memorized from reading books by credentialed writers on the subject. 

The high IQ person generally is very adaptive so doesn't need to or doesn't care about exploiting the evolutionary advantage they have by blending in. They are more intellectually curious. So by contrast they will display intelligence by looking at stuff like novel theories and linking stuff together from vastly different fields.

There is nothing wrong with being a midwit of course but it's best to acknowledge it and just try to build a respectable income in the trades  

Here is what's going to confuse you though in later years. The dominant hierarchy of beliefs is shifting and you will start to see other midwits be conservatives and use the same credentialism that is so stupid once control of institutions change.