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

Author: WyIted
Abortion
personhood
pro choice
pro life
bodily autonomy

Posts

Total: 90
#61
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,547
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Even a person of slightly above average IQ knows 2016 Trump was objectively way worse for the country than 2025 Trump.
So you don't even know what objective means. Noted.
#62
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,547
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@WyIted
I just know dude is failing to logic and thinks he has an IQ of 135 based on online tests. What makes the claim even more dubious is that he is Puerto Rican and has also willingly decided to live in New York. No gun to his head he just like rats running across his feet, dealing with impatient assholes and working 2 jobs to afford an apartment in the ghetto. There's literally roads out of the city and he is like "nope going to continue to live in a blue area because I bet red areas are worse than this"
lol

You triggered bro? You should speak to someone about that. Sincerely. You really need to find out why you can't have a discussion with people you disagree with without turning to them personally. Especially when you don't even know anything about them.
#63
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,221
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@WyIted
You have to see through their eyes. They are essentially a captive populace, with chronic Stockholm syndrome. Most of them, as you say, believe it could not get any better than they have it now. You can show them pictures of what a subway is around the world (Paris, Seoul, Moscow); that they don't have to live in filth and graffiti, but the idea just will not register. Per Stockholm, they are grateful to their tormentors for any crumb, no matter how small. The most frightening thing about DOGE to these people is the very idea that waste and corruption could actually exist. Since they do not believe it exists, then they are forced to take the position that DOGE is only a way for Musk to "make money" no matter how ridiculous the logic is.
Topic's author
#64
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 7,107
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
I literally gave you a chance at logic and you failed. I talk to people I disagree with and get along with them fine. 

This responses is one of your problems at all. 

If you think me saying that new York has rats and people are in a rush in New York is an insult than maybe the problem is with you. If you don't know that this stuff exists and is pervasive in New York than that says more about you than me. 

How do you think I would respond if i lived in New York and you said that to me? 

So you think ai would lie and say bro new yorkers are not the touchy feely type, rats are not a problem and people there are patient?

I wouldn't lie bro. I would say something to either spin some of that as true but portrayed wrong

"Bro we hustle, it ain't a bad thing we are in a rush" I sure as hell wouldn't take your route and consider mere statements of facts and insult. 

That's the difference between how a reasonable person responds and an idiot


#65
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,221
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@WyIted
A funny thing also about these people and Doge, They are worried Musk will use DOGE to find out their SSN and somehow use it to make money.

They mysteriously didn't care when Musk had the same exact access while he was  running PAYPAL.

These people HAVE to believe deep down that there is near zero corruption currently going on with the government in order for any of this to be plausibly true.
Topic's author
#66
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 7,107
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
It's just odd. I am studying cyber security and there is ways to anonymize the data for audits so it's all nonsense anyway. Assuming it couldn't be anonymized it is absurd these idiots think musk is going to open a credit card in their name and steal $500 from them
#67
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,221
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@WyIted
We have 100 thousand unaccountable, untouchable, and nameless people at the IRS that have access to everything from everybody, and we are supposed to be worried when the most scrutinized man on the planet has access? Wake up lol.

It's clear that this manufactured outrage came from the very people responsible for the existing corruption. Obvious to any normal common sense person.
Topic's author
#68
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 7,107
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
That's the weakness of conservatism to a certain extent. Reluctance to use the government for political means. This is why the left can keep adding programs unabated that advance their ideology while the right just watches and tries to defund it at best. 

Hopefully that is behind us and we completely reverse this slow motion collapse
#69
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,221
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@WyIted
Conservatism, and to a large extent the constitution and democracy, only functions within the framework of a moral society. Otherwise, people will use the levers of government to destroy the people who threaten their power, whether this is done at the upper hierarchy of DC, or at the tribal leader level (think BLM, AIPAC, and SPLC).
#70
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,221
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@WyIted
The idea of self-government—the heart of democracy—requires that citizens and leaders alike exercise self-restraint, moral integrity, and a sense of responsibility toward the common good. If people are driven purely by selfish desires, they would be more likely to manipulate the system, undermine trust, and destroy the social contract that holds society together. As James Madison warned, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." In a moral society, citizens would act responsibly, allowing democracy to function without the need for heavy-handed government control.

Because corrupt people in Government power saw the value of undermining the sense of morality toward the common good, they achieved this by the "diversity is our strength" propaganda campaign, which created the lack of unifying civic morals we have today that allows government to be weaponized against the people as the founding fathers feared could/would happen....

Because that unity is unlikely to return anytime soon, the only other option is to reduce the size of that weapon in order to protect the people.

Or we elect benevolent dictators to wield that weapon for good.
#71
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,547
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@WyIted
I literally gave you a chance at logic and you failed
Says someone who has demonstrated over and over again that they do not understand how logic works. Most recent example; favoring an argument from ignorance fallacy over Occam's razor.

If you think me saying that new York has rats and people are in a rush in New York is an insult than maybe the problem is with you. 
I didn't say anything about being insulted. I specifically pointed to the fact that you turned the whole conversation to me personally. Insulting or not, that's still an ad hominem. For someone who claims to care about logic, that should mean something. If you have no arguments left just admit that or move on. I couldn't care less what you think about NYC.


Topic's author
#72
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 7,107
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
We are at a stand still because you failed to understand some points I made. Not disagreed but failed to understand. Not sure what's left for me to do when that happens. 

You are seem to not tell me my argument is wrong but that I don't understand how words work and. The definition i provided. The words don't mean what I think despite the fact I literally looked up the definition to confirm I was in fact not crazy. 

If you understand the argument I made for bodily autonomy which may contradict some pro life points than I guess we can progress. It would require you to put the argument unmade into your own words and then tell me how the point i was making with that relates to other points. 

You also need to take a very literal interpretation of the definition i provided as all definitions should be taken extremely literally
#73
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,547
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@WyIted
The words don't mean what I think despite the fact I literally looked up the definition to confirm I was in fact not crazy. 
You read the definition, saw what you wanted, then made no real effort to check if what you saw was actually there.

If you had bothered to read your own source you would have noticed that they went on to explain clearly what they were talking about. Here's  some of it:

"Bodily autonomy is essential for achieving justice and freedom; it is the freedom to choose if, when, and how to have children, and is a fundamental human right. 
 
What exactly does bodily autonomy encompass? It’s the right to fully informed and consensual decision-making:
  • Having full access to the information, options, and resources needed to make informed choices about reproductive healthcare, because we know that full consent to care cannot be given without having all the facts. This includes (but is not limited to!) options for contraception, abortion care, pregnancy care, childbirth options, childcare, emergency contraception, gender affirming care and fertility treatments.
 
  • The ability to decide what happens *to* your body and when, including no physical contact without consent, no invasive medical procedures without consent, no interactions with armed agents of the state (like police!), and safe and empowered intra-communal interactions.
All of this aligns with exactly what I said. Making decisions about ones body means deciding what happens to your body, not what you get to use your body to do to someone else.

We are at a stand still because you failed to understand some points I made.
I don't think it's me who doesn't understand. Let's recap;

The central purpose of this thread is to argue that those who rely on bodily autonomy as an argument for legalizing abortion are inconsistent because they don't believe in bodily autonomy in other situations.

My point from the start is that what you are calling bodily autonomy in order to make this argument is wrong. You are conflating something that is not bodily autonomy, attributing it to bodily autonomy advocates, then using this false attribution to claim they believe in it on this issue but not others.

To put that more simply:

BA advocates believe in position X

You are falsely attributing to them position XY

Then you are claiming because they don't accept Y elsewhere, they are inconsistent.

Wrong. They never asserted Y, you did.



Topic's author
#74
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 7,107
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
The central purpose of this thread is to argue that those who rely on bodily autonomy as an argument for legalizing abortion are inconsistent because they don't believe in bodily autonomy in other situations.
Wrong. I narrowed it down to a specific group of people by listing the exclusions.

You are conflating something that is not bodily autonomy,
I have the definition we are working with for this thread and if people who use the bodily autonomy argument and intend a different definition than they need to use a different definition. 

The expanded definition you gave above is not even a definition.

Bodily autonomy is essential for achieving justice and freedom; it is the freedom to choose if, when, and how to have children, and is a fundamental human right. 
Defense of bodily autonomy not a strict definition.

What exactly does bodily autonomy encompass? It’s the right to fully informed and consensual decision-making:
Describing what it encompasses it's transitioning to a descriptive definition but a prescriptive definition was already given 

All of this aligns with exactly what I said. Making decisions about ones body means deciding what happens to your body, not what you get to use your body to do to someone else.
What you said isn't important. Reread the definition i provided that we are working with also talk to a philosopher to understand why that definition is better for discussing the philosophical concept of bodily autonomy . Or better yet just ask chat GPT if I am using the definition I provided correctly.

You are essentially defining it in a way that removes strict lines and makes the definition fuzzy which all but makes the word meaningless. 


#75
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,221
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@WyIted
A society that embraces bodily autonomy as an absolute right demands no civic duties, and therefore, citizenship is a meaningless term for that society.

In fact, no social contract could ever be drawn because no citizen would be required to bring anything to the table under this framework. This is similar to the idea of an absolute "right to privacy" as it would make it impossible for the state to verify that any civic duties were fulfilled under the social contract.
#76
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 393
Posts: 12,384
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
A society that embraces bodily autonomy as an absolute right demands no civic duties, and therefore, citizenship is a meaningless term for that society.
In fact, no social contract could ever be drawn because no citizen would be required to bring anything to the table under this framework.
I actually hold view that anyone arguing for body autonomy must argue for body autonomy of future generations as well. In that case, a woman simply cannot have an abortion because abortion would violate autonomy of offspring and every of its offsprings produced as a result.

To put it simply, if body autonomy is good, then it is not possible to argue that autonomy of future generations can be violated by abortion. Future generations always outnumber the current population, so autonomy of future generations is even more important, thus abortion cannot be allowed.

There are some moral goals which support abortion, but body autonomy isnt one.
#77
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,547
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@WyIted
The central purpose of this thread is to argue that those who rely on bodily autonomy as an argument for legalizing abortion are inconsistent because they don't believe in bodily autonomy in other situations.
Wrong. I narrowed it down to a specific group of people by listing the exclusions.
So you don't even know what your own thread is about.

You did not exclude anyone, you talked about who the argument applies to based on other beliefs they may hold. You said the only people being consistent here are libertarians and your two examples of people who typically rely on bodily autonomy to justify their stance on abortion were COVID (masks and vaccine mandates) and forceful taxation.

Your thread (at least at the outset) is exactly what I just described.

You are conflating something that is not bodily autonomy,
I have the definition we are working with for this thread and if people who use the bodily autonomy argument and intend a different definition than they need to use a different definition. 

The expanded definition you gave above is not even a definition.
The "expanded definition" I provided came directly from your own source.

Again, you posted a definition but do not understand the definition of the words within it. This is like me posting a definition of a cat as a "four legged animal...", then saying this definition applies to a table, and when I'm corrected in that a table is not an animal I just keep repeating that I posted the definition as proof that I'm using it right.

So for the third or fourth time now, making decisions about one's own body does not mean deciding how that body can be used against other people. Consistent with the English language, the link that you provided explained very clearly that making decisions about ones body is in regards things that happen *to* their body and saying it should not happen unless consented to first. That's what pro choice advocates are talking about, so your mask and vaccine mandate examples are not comparable.

What exactly does bodily autonomy encompass? It’s the right to fully informed and consensual decision-making:
Describing what it encompasses it's transitioning to a descriptive definition but a prescriptive definition was already given 
They're explaining to you what their own definition means.

There's no greater tell that someone is engaging bad in bad faith conversation than the usage of someone else's words while completely disregarding what the person who used them actually meant. You pretend to be interested in understanding but clearly all you're after is a "gotcha".

You are essentially defining it in a way that removes strict lines and makes the definition fuzzy which all but makes the word meaningless. 
I am applying it in a way that makes clear what the people who actually use this term, the people who's position you are sitting here criticizing, means.

And no, it is not meaningless. There is an obvious and significant difference between deciding whether your body can be used as an incubation chamber to create another human being, and being told you cannot enter into a store without wearing a mask. The fact that you have to play these absurd word games to try and conflate them is disingenuous at best.
Topic's author
#78
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 7,107
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
Again, you posted a definition but do not understand the definition of the words within it.
What does the part of the definition that states "Without limits" Mean? 

You did not exclude anyone
It excludes anyone that thinks bodily autonomy needs to balanced with other rights and is conscious of that. It only includes those who think bodily autonomy is good enough as a stand alone premise. Bodily autonomy I gave a definition for from a source who was pro choice but I could have pulled similar definitions from other places the point was to show what bodily autonomy truly means without getting bogged down in its more philosophical descriptions. 

In this thread I am arguing against Steven Pinker's view on what bodily autonomy is, a real philosopher who understands the term better than you do and who is pro choice. Typically when I am arguing bioethics, I am debating Pinker spiritually. However i searched for a definition I thought he would agree with and you seem to be muddying that defintion for some odd reason instead of working within the framework I gave. 

I have no ideal what Pinker's views on masks mandates are, however I am arguing that many who intuit Pinker's bodily autonomy argument are being inconsistent. I would urge you to study his work as I have because he provides better arguments than you for many of the positions you hold. 

So for the third or fourth time now, making decisions about one's own body does not mean deciding how that body can be used against other people. Consistent with the English language, the link that you provided explained very clearly that making decisions about ones body is in regards things that happen *to* their body and saying it should not happen unless consented to first. That's what pro choice advocates are talking about, so your mask and vaccine mandate examples are not comparable.
You would have to build syllogisms or some other similar logical structure for each argument to see if the premises conflict. If the argument is to allow abortions because of bodily autonomy than we already are acknowledging that bodily autonomy is more important than human life. the mask mandates contradict this. If you don't believe that a fetus counts as human life than you have been excluded from the argument as I said this is only for pro choice proponents who use the bodily autonomy argument and who acknowledge the fetus is a human being with personhood.

There's no greater tell that someone is engaging bad in bad faith conversation than the usage of someone else's words while completely disregarding what the person who used them actually meant. You pretend to be interested in understanding but clearly all you're after is a "gotcha".
This thread is not about understanding a position but in checking logic.It's two different things. Had I been trying to better understand the pro choice position than I would argue the pro life position, but I haven't done that. This isn't about a gotcha either. It's about examining one argument not all arguments for the pro choice position. If I was trying to disprove the pro choice position altogether I would gather every argument that Steven Pinker has ever made and argue against those as he is the most intelligent proponent of abortion and his views do not seem self contradictory.  

And no, it is not meaningless. There is an obvious and significant difference between deciding whether your body can be used as an incubation chamber to create another human being, and being told you cannot enter into a store without wearing a mask
not if the entirety of the argument is that bodily autonomy trumps health and life of another. 

The fact that you have to play these absurd word games to try and conflate them is disingenuous at best.

You are getting distracted. If I had to steelman your position from the facts gathered in this thread I would guess you are saying that pregnancy causes a lot of stress and hardship on a woman's body and that it's a lot of work to carry a pregnancy to term and essentially makes the woman a slave to the fetus, while mask mandates are a small inconvenience on the human body and do a lot for public health. 

I am not arguing against the position I just steelmanned. I think the position I steel manned in the preceding paragraph is a good argument in favor of the pro choice position. You are attempting to make that argument and it's irrelevant to the thread and I have not criticized that position.
Topic's author
#79
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 7,107
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
SO essentially when looking at abortion arguments, if you can address both the arguments of Peter Singer and Steven Pinker than you will probably win nearly every pro life debate you make, and if you understand just one of their ethical frameworks inside and out than that is good enough to win 99% of pro choice debates.
Topic's author
#80
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 7,107
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
Utilitarianism and secular humanist approaches to the topic. 2 very evil and wrong moral frameworks, but ones also hard to argue against
#81
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 393
Posts: 12,384
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@WyIted
Utilitarianism and secular humanist approaches to the topic. 2 very evil and wrong moral frameworks, but ones also hard to argue against
I dont really support any moral framework other than the only logical one: wish morality.

Wish morality is true by tautology and cannot be argued against at all.

Person should do what he wants, because the only other option is to do what he doesnt want, and he cannot want that by tautology.

The difference between wish morality and all other moral frameworks is that all other moral frameworks impose goals on people, while wish framework lets people determine their goals and create ideal society where greatest number of people achieve greatest number of their wishes.

There are individual wishes and there are wishes of the group, which need to be understood when they are in contradiction.

Wish morality would never allow abortion, as the amount of all wishes of future individual destroyed by abortion greatly exceeds that of wishes of pregnant woman destroyed by pregnancy, as pregnancy does not destroy all her wishes where abortion does destroy all wishes of future person.

In this sense, I dont make difference between current and future generations, because logical difference cannot be made in favor of current generations.
#82
baggins
baggins's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 111
1
3
9
baggins's avatar
baggins
1
3
9
-->
@WyIted
Bodily Autonomy refers to each person’s right to make decisions about their own body, without coercion or limits imposed by outside forces
Making decisions about your own body should come with no limits, yes. 

Other people also have the same right so it’s common sense that you cannot use your right to violate the same right of someone else.

Making decisions about your own body that affect the bodies of other people without their consent is not granted by the bodily autonomy argument nor by its definition.
[the examples you provided as inconsistent (face masks…) include decisions that infringe other people’s bodily autonomy] 

Remember by your definition, each person has the right to choose what happens to their body. In society, if you use your bodily autonomy to violate the bodily autonomy of someone else that equals consequences. Which is why we have rules, laws and bans that make it clear for people who don’t understand what bodily autonomy is and what exactly it allows them to do. 
Those are not inconsistencies. 

Now, what I think is that the unborn baby in a sense is a part of the mother, it doesn’t have full (if not any) bodily autonomy because its body is not autonomous. By aborting the baby you are not infringing on another person’s autonomy because they have none yet. They depend on using your body and cannot make their own decisions.  I could be wrong but this is what I think as of now. 

To attribute bodily autonomy to an unborn baby is a different discussion that would involve talking about what rights should the baby have and what personhood is.  This should probably be clarified before talking about the bodily autonomy argument imo. That’s why I asked you that first. 

If you don’t have a definition of what is a person and what rights should the baby have it will be difficult to analyze most of the abortion related topics.

Even if you consider the baby an independent person, that person is still using your body to survive. If the case is then that people who are pro choice value bodily autonomy more than life and you just think thats bad, ok. But it is not inconsistent. Because when you say

(paraphrasing) “you should not enforce face mask because your logic follows that bodily autonomy is more important than spreading this disease and potentially killing other people (taking life like abortion for the sake of autonomy“

that doesn’t mean that “liberals” suddenly decided to value life over bodily autonomy in this case. They still value bodily autonomy first. They want people who live in society to not violate the bodily autonomy of each other. Going out in public if you’re sick and not taking precautions to not harm others is violation on the bodily autonomy argument. 


Anyway.

Where is the inconsistency with any of this and Im curious why secular humanism is an evil moral framework regarding this topic?



#83
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,221
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Best.Korea
But the real point I was making is that NO SOCIAL CONTRACT could ever be created under the framework of unlimited bodily autonomy, and therefore, no right to anything could ever be guaranteed, including the right to kill your own fetus.

Instead of the government being an obligated partner under the social contract, it becomes the supreme authority with no obligations. No rights could exist.
Topic's author
#84
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 7,107
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@baggins
They still value bodily autonomy first. They want people who live in society to not violate the bodily autonomy of each other. Going out in public if you’re sick and not taking precautions to not harm others is violation on the bodily autonomy argument.
We are talking about mandates here not personal choice. You can claim the personal choice violated the autonomy of others but you can't mandate that action without violating the autonomy of the person mandated to wear a mask 

Im curious why secular humanism is an evil moral framework regarding this topic?
As an aside it's evil not necessarily it's evil solely in relationship to this topic. For example secular humanism has led to William which has led to violations of freedom of speech, race based and other attributes based hiring and the chopping off of penises of 5 years olds to satisfy the manchausen by proxy of their parents. The creators of secular humanism, likely didn't see the logical conclusions of their ideology but it doesn't change the logical conclusions we have seen in real life
#85
baggins
baggins's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 111
1
3
9
baggins's avatar
baggins
1
3
9
-->
@WyIted
Obviously in society the people who violate the bodily autonomy of others will not have their bodily autonomy.


This is why we take away the bodily autonomy and sometimes the life itself from people like serial killers.


Some laws are specifically for those who do not consider the bodily autonomy of others. There are no logical inconsistencies. If you don’t respect other people’s wishes about their own bodies, yours wont be too.

In the same time you are absolutely free to do whatever it pleases you with your own body. If you wish to go Congo and not get vaccinated for ebola and get it, you are free to do nothing about it and die peacefully somewhere where people don’t mind being infected by you. You are obviously not free to come and spread your body fluids in my house. Thats how the bodily autonomy argument works. In my opinion.

The mandates you are talking about are only about assumed violators of the bodily autonomy principle.
#86
baggins
baggins's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 111
1
3
9
baggins's avatar
baggins
1
3
9
-->
@WyIted
In the definition you’re working with you mention that everyone has the right of bodily autonomy. Do you not think this implies people can’t interfere with other people’s bodily autonomy even if they have no limits when it comes to doing things on themselves. The definition grants autonomy to every person. People who violate that should get the obvious consequences (the consq. being having their b.a. violated). Maybe the logic of your arguments are not internally consistent with your own definition that specifically implies that there are limits when it comes to others and no limits when it comes to oneself. If you assume things that contradict the first sentence of your definition “every person has bodily autonomy” then obviously the second part “with no limits” doesn’t apply to what you think it applies. It applies to yourself only. There’s no limits what can you do to your own body as long as you don’t touch other peoples bodies. Per your definition. Since everyone has the same right.
#87
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,547
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@WyIted
If I had to steelman your position from the facts gathered in this thread I would guess you are saying that pregnancy causes a lot of stress and hardship on a woman's body and that it's a lot of work to carry a pregnancy to term and essentially makes the woman a slave to the fetus, while mask mandates are a small inconvenience on the human body and do a lot for public health. 
This is not what I've been arguing. It's barely even close.

I've made my position clear many times in this thread, yet all you seem to have heard is one part of one post where I went into depth on the stress caused on a woman's body, and even then I was making that point for a very different reason.

This thread is not about understanding a position but in checking logic.
That's all I've been arguing as well. 

The problem is you cannot properly assess the logic of an argument if you do not understand its premises, and the premises that you are basing your inconsistency argument on is wrong. That's what I've spent pretty much the entirety of this thread pointing out.

So no, I'm not arguing that involuntary pregnancy is worse than a mask mandate, I'm arguing that it's different.

If the argument is to allow abortions because of bodily autonomy than we already are acknowledging that bodily autonomy is more important than human life.
The question isn't which one is more important. The question is which one trumps the other in a particular circumstance.

I gave a definition for from a source who was pro choice but I could have pulled similar definitions from other places the point was to show what bodily autonomy truly means without getting bogged down
So again, it all comes back to this. I have explained to you repeatedly why the definition you gave does not match to the way you are using it, and it is specifically the error which you are making that you are then using to allege an inconsistency in the bodily autonomy argument.

The distinction is not that hard, it is the difference between the choice you have over what happens to your body vs what you are allowed to do with your body.

Pregnancy is happening to your body.

Putting on a mask is something you do with your body. Exposing your genitals to children is something you do with your body. Stabbing someone else is something you do with your body. None of those are the same as the former.

If you think you are refuting anything I've said, refute the difference between these two things, or show me how the bodily autonomy argument does not rely on this distinction.
#88
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,547
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@WyIted
We are talking about mandates here not personal choice.
The mandates you are referring to only apply within a given circumstance and the individual has the option to not partake in it.

You don't want to wear a mask, don't go into the store. You don't want to stay pregnant... Don't exist?

Those are not remotely the same.
Topic's author
#89
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 7,107
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
You don't want to wear a mask, don't go into the store. You don't want to stay pregnant... Don't exist?
This is beside the point but i would say you have a type of social contract with your child not to murder them. 

So now you are arguing about what happens to your body vs what your body does?

So this violates the definition i presented and takes this subject off topic, but i am willing to humor the fact that idiots don't understand the philosophical definition of bodily autonomy and are using it wrong. 

So your assertion is that

What happens to your body is something that you should be able to control? While the government controlling what you do does not violate your autonomy.

Am I understanding this correctly?

You don't want to wear a mask, don't go into the store.
Yeah cool. I brought up mask mandates not store policies. Are you conflating the two?

Yes it is okay for a store to prevent this. It doesn't violate bodily autonomy because you can choose a different store. It would be wrong for the government to pressure stores to have this mandate though in the eyes of anybody who both knows what bodily auto only is and who believes it Trump's consideration for the life and health of others to the point of murdering a child to ensure bodily autonomy
#90
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,547
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@WyIted
So now you are arguing about what happens to your body vs what your body does?
I've been arguing this since the start of our conversation. Thank you for joining me.

So this violates the definition i presented
No, it falls perfectly in line with the definition you provided, as I've explained in detail now at least 3 times.

but i am willing to humor the fact that idiots don't understand the philosophical definition of bodily autonomy and are using it wrong. 
It is irrelevant if the proponents of the bodily autonomy are getting the definition "wrong", this is what they're talking about. Again, if you're going to argue that someone else is inconsistent in what they believe, you need to work with what they actually believe, not the version of their beliefs you made up.

What happens to your body is something that you should be able to control? While the government controlling what you do does not violate your autonomy.

Am I understanding this correctly?
For the most part. This gets far more nuanced though.

Yeah cool. I brought up mask mandates not store policies. Are you conflating the two?
No

Yes it is okay for a store to prevent this. It doesn't violate bodily autonomy because you can choose a different store. It would be wrong for the government to pressure stores to have this mandate though in the eyes of anybody who both knows what bodily auto only is and who believes it Trump's consideration for the life and health of others to the point of murdering a child to ensure bodily autonomy
Well first of all, this conversation excludes a fetus being considered a person, so that's irrelevant to what we're talking about.

Second, part of why your inconsistency argument fails is because it is based on absolutes. That is, the idea that if you believe in bodily autonomy then you believe it trumps everything, all the time, no exceptions. No right works this way.

Mask mandates are not a violation of bodily autonomy, but there are some practical overlaps. Would it be a violation of bodily autonomy to pin someone down and force a mask over their face? I'd say yeah. Are there circumstances where that would be warrented? Yes conceivably. Is giving someone no practical alternative but to wear a mask similar to pinning them down and forcing it on their face? Yes similar, but not the same. Again, the difference is that even though the alternatives are impractical, there are still alternatives. A true violation of bodily autonomy like rape, forced pregnancy, etc. there is no alternative. There is no other choice.

Even if you go so far as to call a mask mandate a violation of BA the saying "the freedom to swing your arms ends at someone else's nose" still applies. And keep in mind, that saying presumes that the other person's nose is in that person's space. It does not apply to someone who is say, breaking into your house. This is another key difference to why BA advocates side with the mother. The baby may not have broken in, but it's definitely in the mother's space.

There's nothing inconsistent here.