Bodily Autonomy

Author: Danielle

Posts

Total: 329
#181
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
Miscarriage isn't a choice so it isn't murder or manslaughter, it is an accident that is not due to any negligence of the mother so there should be no penalty.
i mean, we are talking about A HUMAN LIFE here, you can't just say "whoopsie!!"
#182
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
Not saving someone is not the same as actively killing them.

There's a huge difference between not donating to save someone, and pushing them in a woodchipper.
it's not such a "huge difference" if the end result is death
#183
DebateAllDaTings
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 78
0
1
2
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
DebateAllDaTings
0
1
2
-->
@3RU7AL
If someone is literally starving themselves and refusing to sleep then yes, that would be negligence. I doubt it would be hard not to notice that was the reason for miscarriage. Doctors can tell these sort of things.


#184
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
I doubt it would be hard not to notice that was the reason for miscarriage.
would you require an autopsy for every miscarriage ?
#185
DebateAllDaTings
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 78
0
1
2
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
DebateAllDaTings
0
1
2
-->
@3RU7AL
Intent matters. 

A baby dying due to internal complications that the mother didn't choose is not the same thing as choosing to kill the child.

My friend was driving a car that killed my best friend, he got no charges and no jail time because it was an accident. Now, if he intended to kill my friend that would be different.

According to the law, intent is crucial in determining criminality. This is called Mens Rea.



#186
DebateAllDaTings
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 78
0
1
2
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
DebateAllDaTings
0
1
2
-->
@3RU7AL
There's tons of ways to determine the cause of the miscarriage. Blood tests, ultrasounds, genetic screening, hormone tests etc.

If there was any gross negligence then it could easily be determined. Most cases? It has nothing to do with negligance.
#187
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
Intent matters. 
even better

how do you propose we distinguish an "intentional" miscarriage from an "unintentional" miscarriage ?

i'm pretty certain a simple autopsy won't solve this
#188
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
If there was any gross negligence then it could easily be determined.
"easily determined" with a battery of mandatory tests ?

how do you propose we prosecute the murderers who don't report their pregnancy and then intentionally miscarry ?
#189
DebateAllDaTings
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 78
0
1
2
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
DebateAllDaTings
0
1
2
-->
@3RU7AL
Give an example of an "intentional miscarriage". I'm not even sure that statement makes any sense...A miscarriage is defined as "spontaneous loss of a pregnancy before the 20th week" according to medical journals.

This is something that occurs due to the inner workings of the body due to internal complications. 

Are you talking about someone who starves themselves or takes drugs to try and cause one?

Also, not all murder is caught. If someone doesn't report their pregnancy and hides the intentional killing of their unborn child, then it is something that I suppose they just get away with (it is not like they have to hide a body in a grave or something). It would be impossible to practically regulate such things.
#190
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
It would be impossible to practically regulate such things.
not impossible

for example, google can predict if someone may be pregnant and searching for information to induce a miscarriage

this would constitute premeditated murder and they could be legally obligated to report this to the police
#191
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
Give an example of an "intentional miscarriage".
Benjamin Franklin gave instructions on at-home abortions in a book in the 1700s
#192
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
You are the one who used eviction as an analogy to abortion,
Fair enough. Point of clarification: is it your position that everyone should be required to provide their (metaphorical) home and resources to someone who needs it to survive? If so, there are millions of people who need your body to survive. Are you living up to your own standard or does it only apply to pregnant individuals?

I agree that we own ourselves, but that is only if our choices with our body don't significantly put others at risk, harm or kill another innocent person.

Apply those words to the person you envision in every pregnant womb, and you and I will be on the same page. Assuming there were a choice to subject another person to pregnancy, risk, harm, and/or death would necessarily be part of the outcome. This is an unavoidable consequence of pregnancy.

I don't want to go in circles, as I think you would just respond to the above question with "because the unborn child isn't autonomous".
You would be wrong. I would respond with 'there is no right to use the body of another without consent'. Personhood is a distractive tangent to the abortion discussion because self-ownership is a protection not a weapon. If the 'battleground' is within a person, they have the final say. The unborn resides within another person, not the other way around.
Topic's author
#193
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
There's enough bi-partisan support for a right to abort up to viability.
What makes you think that? 
Topic's author
#194
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
This thread took a turn lol
#195
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
Because nearly half of the right support it and nearly all on the left support it.

The only real obstacle is convincing the left to let go of a profitable wedge issue.
#196
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Danielle
This thread took a turn lol
We're just trying to keep it interesting! ;-p
#197
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
How was beach day?
#198
DebateAllDaTings
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 78
0
1
2
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
DebateAllDaTings
0
1
2
-->
@3RU7AL
Searching for information on how to murder isn’t premeditated murder. Someone could be just googling it for curiosity on how to do it, there’s no way to show intent. 

Also, miscarriage isn’t abortion so mentioning Franklin seems confusing.


Topic's author
#199
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
Because nearly half of the right support it and nearly all on the left support it.
And yet HERE WE ARE lol. It's cute you think Republicans give a shit about what the majority of voters want. Their whole election strategy at this point is circumventing the electorate. They've had 50 years to get with the times re: abortion, but they haven't because it's way  more politically useful to pander to a small group of religious conservatives instead. 

Plus all they have to do is keep promoting right-wing wedge issues and convince people that Joe Biden is responsible for gas prices, and voters will vote for Republicans regardless of their stance on abortion. Politicians know that. I completely disagree with you that it would be possible to make this kind of amendment today. In fact I think it's more likely there would be a national ban on abortion if a Republican wins the presidency in 2024. 






#200
DebateAllDaTings
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 78
0
1
2
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
DebateAllDaTings
0
1
2
-->
@SkepticalOne
Main points. 

1. Needing someone’s body specifically to survive is not the same as needing *A* body in general to survive so literally 0 people on Earth need my body to survive. Plus there is a difference between refraining to help by doing nothing (not donating an organ for example), and actively killing someone (pushing someone into a wood chipper).

“I’m not going to kill you, but I don’t have to save you.” - Batman 

2. Less than 1% of abortions pose a fatal risk to the mother while almost 100% of abortions are fatal to the unborn. Death is worse than 9 months of inconvenience as it is forever. Also, the harm the unborn does is without intent, with abortion there is intent.

Thus, when all things are weighed out, killing the unborn is not even closed to justified.

3. It doesn’t matter where an innocent human resides they have a right not to be killed. The right to life doesn’t depend on spatial location. Thus, I don’t see why it is relevant whether the human is inside a person or not.


#201
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
The only real obstacle is convincing the left to let go of a profitable wedge issue.

How would you convince them?
#202
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
The right to life doesn’t depend on spatial location.

Self-ownership is about a very specific location and what actions happen in that location. There are no rights another person might have which negate this.

As long as you insist on weaponizing rights (which is inappropriate) we are going to disagree.  I've enjoyed the discussion though.


#203
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@SkepticalOne
Under your definitions, we could be outraged at a cancer survivor.
I am - if you smoke yourself to death, that's your own L. 

Also, how would you respond to my thought experiment against Danielle - it is the most relavant. 
 
Suppose there exists a room which gives all those within its walls a natural spike in dopamine for a period of 20 minutes. The entrance is free, however, there is one condition - if you enter, there is a 2 percent chance that you will exist with a human being, whose life is contingent upon your body, attached to you for a duration of 9 months. Now suppose that you enter this room multiple times with no repercussions, however, after a number of trips, you find a human being attached to you. Are you morally allowed to kill this human being? Is the "my body my choice" rhetoric applicable? I assert that, if you willingly enter the room, you implicitly accept that there is a chance for the repercussion. 

Now, the room that I describe is not some fantastical dream world - it is the bedroom in which people have sex in. The statistics likewise pair the chances of one concepting a child when wearing contraception. Unless you argue that it is entirely moral to murder the human being in my example, the logic for abortion does not work. You will also notice that the "my body my choice" talking point is insufficient - in my example, your body, made your choice to enter the room. Too bad you got unlucky, no one forced you into the room.  


#204
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@3RU7AL
Assuming personhood, the fetus still wouldn't have a right to use the body of another without consent. 
The liberty of a mother does not trump a beings right to life. 
do i owe you food and shelter if you're caught in a snow storm ?
If I were in the mountains and there was a blizzard and I am the only one who owns a house within 10 miles and you come straggling to my door, yes I would say that I ought allow you to come in. 
Topic's author
#205
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
I just explained to you why a constitutional amendment to abortion is not happening anytime soon and it has nothing to do with liberals. 
#206
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
and it has nothing to do with liberals. 
Oh really? When was the 1st time the left drafted an abortion bill? What makes you think they won't do it when they lose the majority and can't leverage it as a wedge issue anymore?

I agree only the left will be able to present this legislation. What would you do to convince them to do it?

Who do you think is strong enough on the left to form a bi-partisan coalition?
#207
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Bones
Your scenario does not account for the reality of sex. It is more than merely a good time - it is intimacy, emotionality, security, comfort, etc. These are things humans need and want. This is part of our nature - Avoiding sex isnt a reasonable expectation for sexual beings.

Secondly, pregnancy isn't a burden everyone can endure. Some might lack stability, resources, physical ability, maturity, committment, etc. Forcing a burden in spite of the inability to carry it is cruel and irresponsible.

This is where loose definitions cause problems. The inevitable response will be something along the lines of 'Well, it is a human being - it is not a burden that can be denied', however when an adult woman, a fertilized egg, and a tumor might all qualify under an overly broad definition of human being, this argument can't be taken seriously. A human being isn't merely determined by human DNA or the potential to be a person.

Finally (bringing us back to the OP), a person has the right to say, 'no - I do not consent to having my body used that way', and that my friend, is the end of the story.


Tl;Dr- Your definitions are too broad and your scenario is too simplistic to draw any meaningful conclusions regarding abortion.
#208
DebateAllDaTings
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 78
0
1
2
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
DebateAllDaTings
0
1
2
-->
@SkepticalOne
"Self-ownership is about a very specific location and what actions happen in that location. There are no rights another person might have which negate this."

I disagree. Someone's property being used and the inconvenience that comes with that is a small price to pay for not taking a human life. Why? Because pregnancy is only 9 months; death is forever. Thus, it is really no contest in my eyes.

"As long as you insist on weaponizing rights (which is inappropriate) we are going to disagree.  I've enjoyed the discussion though."

I believe weaponizing rights is exactly what you are doing. After all, the right to not be killed is the most basic right a human can have...
#209
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@SkepticalOne
Your scenario does not account for the reality of sex. It is more than merely a good time - it is intimacy, emotionality, security, comfort, etc.
Ok so what if I change it so that the room triggers the parts of your brain which make you feel as though you are experimenting intimacy, emotionality, security, comfort. Does this change the scenario? Should you be able to kill the human being if you consensually enter the room? 

#210
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
Also, miscarriage isn’t abortion so mentioning Franklin seems confusing.
an induced miscarriage (home abortion) and a "natural" miscarriage are indistinguishable without an autopsy and a police investigation