Bodily Autonomy

Author: Danielle

Posts

Total: 329
Topic's author
#271
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot

So reverting to the exact state of law right before Roe was overturned is unacceptable. Gotcha babe.
Yes, it is unacceptable and I don't think you got me at all considering I've had to repeat myself three times now.  The reason "the exact state of law right before Roe was overturned" is unacceptable is that prior to Roe's overturning, the SCOTUS was allowing deplorable state laws like Texas' heartbeat bill despite Roe's standing, which effectively allows for 6 week abortion bans. What part of this explanation don't you understand? Dear lord. 

And here I was thinking you guys would do anything to go back to the days of Roe.
Well, don't be too surprised that you're wrong... you often are.

I've explained why passing the Women's Health Act > codifying Roe.  Once again: it prevents states from enacting laws that force women to endure waiting periods, laws that force women to hear about their "sinful" choice, laws that force women to hear inaccurate medical information meant to deter their choice, laws that force women to have to go to the doctor or clinic multiple times for the procedure unnecessarily, etc. 

But even if you want to completely disregard my questions about why women should have to endure hardships to receive an abortion if we have a constitutional (or even legislative) right to one, the fact is that on 6/23/22, the day before Roe was overturned so "back to the days of Roe" that you call  for, states were allowed to have 5 or 6 week abortion bans in place. Why the fuck should anyone want that? That's not a standard to long for, babe. 

And all your cheeky comments about Dems' unwillingness to compromise fall totally flat since Republicans have refused to codify Roe, plain and simple.

I've explained to you why your bipartisan bill is a fantasy multiple times. You keep ignoring the fact that the filibuster exists so there's no pathway to passing it. You also haven't suggested which Republican senators would sign on to a bipartisan bill permitting abortion until fetal viability, and that's because you don't have an answer. How do we know that you don't have an answer? Because Collins and Murkowski introduced a bill in February that allegedly just codifies Roe (instead of protecting women's rights further without forced undue hardship, god forbid) and ZERO other Republicans nor Manchin have signed on to it. Womp womp. 

All the snarky comments in the world won't convince anyone with 15% of a functioning brain that Democrats are the ones standing in the way of abortion rights.

It's okay to accept that Republicans are being dipshits on this issue. I promise. Your world won't come crumbling down. You can say it. Be brave. 

#272
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
The Georgia Public Service Commission regulates the state's public utilities like Georgia Power.

According to GPSC spokesman Tom Krause, those companies can't cut off service to a customer for an unpaid bill between November 15 and March 15 if "the forecast local low temperature for a 24-hour period beginning at 8 a.m. on the date of the proposed disconnection is below 32," according to regulations. [**]

but i suspect the penalty for violating this rule is negligible 
#273
DebateAllDaTings
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 78
0
1
2
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
DebateAllDaTings
0
1
2
-->
@3RU7AL
I didn't use social norms or laws as justification, I used them to show how uncontroversial and self-evident the claim I was making was.

I don't need to justify the claim that stealing a paper clip from my office isn't as wrong as robbing a senior's life savings. Certain claims are self-evident and don't require justification. 

Not donating a liver compared to pushing someone into a wood chipper is another example. The former is obviously less wrong than the latter.... This is uncontroversial as it is self-evident.

Viability being relevant IS controversial and not a social norm. Hence the whole pro-life movement.

Thus, your comparison failed.





#274
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
I used them to show how uncontroversial and self-evident the claim I was making was.
that's what justification is
#275
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
Certain claims are self-evident and don't require justification. 
why are you on a debate site then ?
#276
DebateAllDaTings
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 78
0
1
2
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
DebateAllDaTings
0
1
2
-->
@3RU7AL
Not all claims require justification.

Some claims are self-evident.

If someone asked me to justify the claim that touching someone on the shoulder isn't as bad as sodomizing them forcibly, I would think they were a troll.
#277
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
This is uncontroversial as it is self-evident.
no, no it is not
#278
DebateAllDaTings
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 78
0
1
2
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
DebateAllDaTings
0
1
2
-->
@3RU7AL
Refer me to anybody, law maker, social warrior, ANYBODY who feels not donating a liver to someone to save their life should receive decades/ life in prison or the death penalty like pushing someone into a wood chipper would. That would mean most of us should all go to jail, probably even that person.

Just ONE person and I will believe it is "controversial" lol

I'm convinced you are a troll at this point and not serious. 
#279
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
Viability being relevant IS controversial and not a social norm.
The Harvard Center for American Political Studies/Harris Poll’s June 2022 national survey of registered voters shows 72% backed abortion no later than 15 weeks.

for scale,

74% of women (and only 63% of men) enjoy consuming ice cream year-round.
#280
DebateAllDaTings
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 78
0
1
2
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
DebateAllDaTings
0
1
2
-->
@3RU7AL
That still shows controversy, what about that 28%?

0% of people believe not donating your liver to save someone when you can is JUST as morally wrong and criminal as pushing someone into a woodchipper.

Show me one politician or ANYONE who feels that everyone who didn't donate a liver last year when they could deserves the same punishment as murder. That would mean the majority of the population should be in jail right now.

That's absurd.
#281
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
Refer me to anybody, law maker, social warrior, ANYBODY who feels not donating a liver to someone to save their life should receive decades/ life in prison or the death penalty like pushing someone into a wood chipper would.
once again, you are relying on an argumentum ad populum

The moral distinction (or lack of distinction) between killing a person and letting a person die is an important part of the debate over the legalization of euthanasia.

This distinction between killing and letting die gets at a common way that people often think about the issue of euthanasia.

The line of thinking goes roughly like this: “killing a person is morally worse than letting a person die, therefore doctors should be allowed to cease treatment of a patient and ‘let them die’ but should not be able to act upon the patient to cause their death, or ‘kill them’”.

I will argue that this way of thinking is flawed as it is based on the premise that killing a person is morally worse than letting a person die.

I will discuss killing and letting die here, but more importantly I will attempt to decide if the lack of distinction is relevant to the morality of euthanasia at all.

If it is not, I will try to find out what is the morally relevant factor we should be judging.
#282
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
That still shows controversy, what about that 28%?
are you suggesting that we should only pass laws that 100% of citizens agree with ?
#283
DebateAllDaTings
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 78
0
1
2
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
DebateAllDaTings
0
1
2
-->
@3RU7AL
I am not justifying anything with ad populum reasoning that is a straw-man. I am saying the claim I made was self-evident and the complete lack of controversy reflects that.

Also, the difference with doctors is they have a *responsibility* to take care of a patient, it is their job. We are discussing people like you and me housing homeless people or donating livers to strangers. You are shifting the goal posts.

With regards to mother's they have a *responsibility* to take care of their child, so them not housing their children in their womb could arguably be the same as actively killing them. Your point there actually supports my case.

Also, I am not suggesting we only pass laws 100% of the people agree with. I am saying 28% is significantly controversial. The idea that rape for example should be legal is not significantly controversial.





#284
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
significantly controversial
what exactly are you suggesting ?

are you suggesting that some other point SHOULD be the "cut-off" instead of "viability" ?

even though, by your own standard, ANY OTHER "cut-off" point would be MORE "significantly controversial" ?
#285
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
I am not justifying anything with ad populum reasoning that is a straw-man. I am saying the claim I made was self-evident and the complete lack of controversy reflects that.
you seem to be ignoring the fact that anyone at all, even myself could very easily claim some (otherwise indefensible) position is "self-evident"

the fact that you even mention the popularity of the position you claim is "self-evident" is the very definition of an argumentum ad populum (otherwise it is clearly a non-sequitur and or red-herring)

being "uncontroversial" (popular) and being "self-evident" are in no way intrinsically related
#286
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
Also, the difference with doctors is they have a *responsibility* to take care of a patient, it is their job.
the exact same PRINCIPLES apply to driving past a person dying of thirst in the desert

or not opening your door for the stranger caught in a snow-storm

or deporting immigrants back into an active war-zone
#287
DebateAllDaTings
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 78
0
1
2
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
DebateAllDaTings
0
1
2
-->
@3RU7AL
I will only be responding to one of your comments from now on, as your multiple comment replies are horribly annoying...

I chose to respond to this one:

"the exact same PRINCIPLES apply to driving past a person dying of thirst in the desert

or not opening your door for the stranger caught in a snow-storm

or deporting immigrants back into an active war-zone"

No, not even close.

Driving past someone dying of thirst does not guarantee their death. Maybe someone else will pass by them and help them, and if there is a road where there are cars there couldn't be civilization too far.

A stranger caught in a snow storm isn't guaranteed to die if they have a warm enough coat, plus someone else near by might house them, they can also go to a homeless shelter.

Taking immigrants back to a dangerous place doesn't guarantee their death either. This is like saying dropping someone off in the hood is just as bad as shooting them yourself. You are making crazy arguments. 

Abortion, if it is done properly, GUARANTEES the death of the unborn child.

Me not saving someone does not do that, as someone else could potentially save them, or they might find water or a coat.

Your comparisons are absurd.







#288
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
Abortion, if it is done properly, GUARANTEES the death of the unborn child.
by your own previous examples, this is not a guarantee of death

Estimated US National Average: Annual Born Alive Survivors of Abortion: 431.
#289
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
someone else could potentially save them
you can apply this caveat to almost any neglect of personal-responsibility
#290
DebateAllDaTings
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 78
0
1
2
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
DebateAllDaTings
0
1
2
-->
@3RU7AL
I said *if the abortion is done properly* It guarantees death. Those "survivors of abortion" were survivors of a botched abortion.

....Please read my comments thoroughly or I will stop responding.

"you can apply this caveat to almost any neglect of personal-responsibility"

If anybody has a personal responsibility, it's a mother to their child. Abortion clearly violates that personal responsibility.

I don't have a personal responsibility to a stranger if their death isn't almost guaranteed if I don't save them. Even if it was guaranteed, that wouldn't be nearly as strong as a responsibility as a mother to her child. 

With abortion death is almost guaranteed, as less than 0.1% of abortions are not successful in killing the child. You are mentioning extremely rare circumstances.


It is not extremely rare for someone to help someone who I failed to help. If one car can go by (mine) and not save a person, its likely another car will go by, and then another etc.





#291
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
I don't have a personal responsibility to a stranger if their death isn't almost guaranteed if I don't save them.
the fetus inside me is a stranger to you
#292
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
Well, don't be too surprised that you're wrong... you often are.
That's fine. I can live in a world that can never go back to the days of Roe just because some fringe people don't want to collaborate on legislation everyone can agree on. Go ahead with your bad self taking victory laps on never having Roe codified because it sucked to begin with.
#293
DebateAllDaTings
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 78
0
1
2
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
DebateAllDaTings
0
1
2
-->
@3RU7AL
"the fetus inside me is a stranger to you"

But their death IS almost guaranteed if I don't save them from abortion.

I said "I don't have a personal responsibility to a stranger if their death ISN'T almost guaranteed if I don't save them"

Is reading an issue for you? I don't mean to be rude, that is a serious question....

#294
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
78% of Women Considering an Abortion Choose Life When They See an Ultrasound.

so, not exactly "guaranteed to die"
#295
DebateAllDaTings
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 78
0
1
2
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
DebateAllDaTings
0
1
2
-->
@3RU7AL
There's a difference between "considering" an abortion, and having one actually carried out.

We are discussing the unborn being saved from an abortion actually carried out.

If an abortion is actually carried out, then yes, it is an almost certain guaranteed death as failed abortions where the unborn child survives are extremely rare.

You tried to shift the goal posts there, and failed.
#296
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
"the fetus inside me is a stranger to you"

But their death IS almost guaranteed if I don't save them from abortion.
so, is the fetus inside me "guaranteed to die" or not ?

and furthermore,

do you personally have some responsibility (moral or otherwise) to "save" it (i mean, you know, more than the stranger in a snow-storm with a hundred other doors to knock on)
#297
DebateAllDaTings
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 78
0
1
2
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
DebateAllDaTings
0
1
2
-->
@3RU7AL
Yes I do have a personal responsibility.

If a cannon ball shoots a stranger with no arms and no legs into a river and there is nobody else who can save him from guaranteed drowning, and I am standing by the river and could dive in and save him, then I do have have a moral obligation to save this person.


#298
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
and could dive in and save him, then I do have have a moral obligation to save this person.
how is this materially different from the snow-storm example ?
#299
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
Yes I do have a personal responsibility.
what are you personally going to do to stop me seeking an abortion ?
#300
DebateAllDaTings
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 78
0
1
2
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
DebateAllDaTings
0
1
2
-->
@3RU7AL
"how is this materially different from the snow-storm example ?"

A snow storm isn't close to a guaranteed death. Far from it, I've been outside in snow storms as have everyone I know, we are all still alive.

"what are you personally going to do to stop me seeking an abortion ?"

I can't stop people from seeking anything, but I can try to stop abortions from being easily available by advocating for certain laws.