Posts

Total: 174
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,346
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Uragirimono
It depends what you value,

Religions to my mind, are whats and oughts,
What existence is, our place in it, what we ought do,

Atheists 'still have whats and oughts,
There's even atheistic religions I'd say, such as Confucianism.

I vaguely value humans, is my reason.
I also ramble below weirdly in the rest of this post,
Don't feel a need to read the below, I just don't want to delete my thoughts.
. . .

I vaguely value individual human existence,
And to my thinking,
A zygote is a new human beginning, 

I vaguely value people,
But human does and doesn't mean people,
Is a brain dead human a person?
Let's say the brain was removed, to remove any gray disagreement,

I don't believe in souls, though I use the term poetically at times,
If there's no brain, then there's no person,
'Still a human body,
And I 'do value humans,

But I 'might eat a human corpse, to survive a famine.

. . .

"Around week 5, your baby’s brain, spinal cord, and heart begin to develop. Your baby’s brain is part of the central nervous system, which also houses the spinal cord. There are three key components of a baby’s brain to consider. These include:
  • CerebrumThinking, remembering, and feeling occurs in this part of the brain.
  • CerebellumThis part of the brain is responsible for motor control, which allows the baby to move their arms and legs, among other things.
  • Brain stem: Keeping the body alive is the primary role of the brain stem. This includes breathing, heartbeat, and blood pressure."

Is a dog more a 'person than a fetus though?
Well, a dog might be even more a person than a newborn,
 
Certainly the in the ancient world, infanticide existed,
"In Greek society, an infant's worth was measured by its potential to fulfill a useful function in society. Thus Plato, in his Republic, maintained that society was better served if deformed newborns were "hidden away, in some appropriate manner that must be kept secret," a practice that likely included infanticide (460). Similarly Aristotle wrote in Politics: "As to the exposure and rearing of children, let there be a law that no deformed child shall live."
Aristotle also condoned abandonment as a method of population control, although he recommended early abortion in regions where the "regular customs hinder any of those born being exposed" (1335b).
In Sparta, where military strength was highly valued, infanticide may have reached its zenith. In Life of Lycurgus, Plutarch gives an account of the Spartan custom: "But if it was ill born and deformed they sent it to … a chasm-like place at the foot of Mount Taygetus, in the conviction that the life of that which nature had not well-equipped at the very beginning for health and strength, was of no advantage, either to itself or to the state" (16)."

In the modern age, we have China's one child policy,
Though that's not to say such is legal,
Also their antiquity, but the antiquity example is throughout the world,

"From the beginning of the one-child policy, there were concerns that it would lead to an imbalance in the sex ratio. Early in the 1980s, senior officials became increasingly concerned with reports of abandonment and female infanticide by parents desperate for a son."

"Elders in China often reach retirement age without the necessary pension or funds for health care; making sons seem an investment toward retirement. This lead some families to abandon female babies in public spaces in the hopes that the baby would be adopted by another family. The abandoned babies would oftentimes die. Sometimes, the baby would be trafficked by orphanages and adopted to wealthy families abroad. In the US, nearly 3,000 Chinese children were adopted in 2012.

“It is a taboo topic for the Chinese government, which acknowledges the problem exists
 but also does not make public statistics about the number of children kidnapped or the number of children sold into adoption. Because of the implications for the tens of thousands of families in the United States and elsewhere in the West who have adopted children from China the topic is often taboo outside of China’s borders, too.” (From The Atlantic)

As a result of the one-child policy and the tradition of male heirs, there is currently a national gender imbalance. In China, there are 30 million more men than women."

Though I'm not sure that 30 million more men 'matters much in such a huge population.

. . .

Returning to what I value,
I value humans,
I value people,

TWS1405 says elsewhere on this site,
"potentiality ≠ actuality" - TWS1405
 
But potential 'does equal actuality in a sense, to my mind,
An infant is not an adult,
Monkeys exist in actuality more 'persons than an infant,

Ah, and here my nihilism and absurdity rears it's head,
I find myself in difficulty with 'perfect logic, each step and justification shown,

But that's the horrible 'part of it,
I can't even justify 'myself, or other humans as much people as I am,
And my 'care fo-

Ach,
'Too absurd,
. . .
. . .

A zygote, a fetus, an infant,
Are they not all human?
Not all to develop in that direction?
Do I not value humans and people?

. . .

And yet so many exceptions exist.
Uragirimono
Uragirimono's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 74
0
0
5
Uragirimono's avatar
Uragirimono
0
0
5
-->
@Lemming
I like your ramblings. They're great to consider. 

I'm most interested in this part. 

A zygote, a fetus, an infant,
Are they not all human?
Not all to develop in that direction?
Do I not value humans and people?
If you do value humans and people, what does that value look like in terms of the every day choices/actions you take regarding said people? How do you act on your value?
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Lemming
A zygote, a fetus, an infant,
Are they not all human?
Not all to develop in that direction?
Do I not value humans and people?
If you count the human Atrocities committed agains humans, the many world wars and genocides.
Reminding people; 
A zygote, a fetus, an infant,
Are they not all human?
Not all to develop in that direction?
Do I not value humans and people?

Is like denying reality.

Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,346
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Uragirimono
In terms of everyday choices, I often worry I am an evil person,
But of course morality is probably a sliding scale,
Though on another hand I call myself a moral nihilist, but I can't seem to help framing existence into some set of morality.

I walk by homeless people without talking to them, getting to know them, asking if they're alright, If they need any help getting back on track in life.

I too was once a Christian, and to my mind a Christian ought not ignore people in need,
Ah, but such an ideal, an impossible expectation for most of us and our desires, values,

But it's 'not,
People 'could act in such a way, even materialists,
But I don't want to,
I think I only live once,
I want to enjoy life, live for me.

Though I don't kill, steal, or bully people,
I probably would be willing to do so, if I thought I could acquire enormous power from it,
If it was within my ability, likely to succeed,

No, I suspect I am a bad person,
Who lives his small life in a good way, because it's easy, advantageous, to my liking.

I like being nice, polite to people, camaraderie, 'bit of concern for others,
Though I don't enjoy crowds, or 'too much interaction with people.

. . .

I'd be willing to give up all my savings in the bank, if my second brother would go to rehab,
But wouldn't do that for a random person.

In some moments, I suspect I'd even sacrifice my life, to save another person,
But that's just expected reaction to a sudden situation right in my face, aggression against an antagonist,

But are the boats not 'everywhere, in every moment?

I drive myself to madness at times, thinking on it,
(Not really, but does bother me a little if I think about it)

. . .

'Ah,
I suppose that 'might be one of my reasons for disliking abortion,
It is an immediate situation one is placed in, often against their will,
A switch given, to remove pain to oneself, at the cost of another.
Depends I suppose, on whether on 'values a fetus X amount.

Does one value their child, their blood?
Though not everyone 'views a fetus as a human/person, so question itself, doesn't always apply.

. . .
. . .

I go to work, pay my taxes, ask my friends and family if they're allright,
Stay in regular contact with them, though I don't 'like talking 'so much,
Do things I don't want to help them,

Even strangers and coworkers, I help 'slightly, in 'small favors and tasks,
I don't think I'd harm or work against others interests usually, except for extreme profit, ('Maybe not even then)

But I'm not a proactive person, and there are many people I do not choose to help.
Uragirimono
Uragirimono's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 74
0
0
5
Uragirimono's avatar
Uragirimono
0
0
5
-->
@Lemming
😂 😂 😂 😂 

Let's try a yes or no question -- do you think your valuing of humans gives you authority to tell other humans what to do with their own bodies?
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,346
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Uragirimono
Yes.

@##63
Reminding people of others humanity, rather than dehumanizing them, affirms reality,
I'd say.

Well, a 'version of reality, anyway.

Banning Roe v Wade seems to have hurt the Republicans politically I think?
Thus it was a moral based, rather than political based,
I'd think,
Since it was done based on what was believed 'right, than what would acquire power.

Just took a walk to the store, after post #64, thinking to myself on the way to and from.

Quality vs quantity.
Purple robe, Aurelius's Meditations.
Morally gray.
“He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how.” - Friedrich Nietzsche.
Everything dissolves in the pot.
"He was getting close to mine." - Attributed to Abraham Lincoln
Honor above life.
Mencius, the well.
Is is not what is and ought but what is and will.


ahiyah
ahiyah's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 73
0
1
3
ahiyah's avatar
ahiyah
0
1
3
-->
@Uragirimono
Here's some non-religious reasons:

  • Empathy for the child. 
  • Recognizing that children's rights are more important than women's rights.
  • Moral consistency, or lack thereof.
  • Recognizing that human life has value and that it is wrong to kill another human, even if it isn't fully formed yet.
  • Taking responsibility and not choosing the easy way out. 
Point #2 is very important because in every single circumstance bar abortion, children are more important than female adults. Adults matter less than children, and certainly much less than infants, so why does that suddenly change when someone wants an abortion?

Point #3 is similar to the second one, but it's essential to expound on it separately.

Why is it that when a woman wants to keep her baby, it is treated with the utmost care and consideration and all efforts are made to look after and embrace this baby by her, her family, her medical practitioners, and the rest of society, but when a woman decides that she doesn't want it it becomes this dispensible cluster of cells that is of no significance to her or the rest of us, and just needs to be disposed of in the most disgusting and brutal way?

A baby who dies when a woman is at 20 weeks may get a grave, but another one who isn't wanted at the same gestational age gets crushed and dismembered while still inside her, and then put into trash bags and treated as medical waste? 

Where is the moral consistency? Why aren't all babies worthwhile? If one is valuable and is to be treated with great care throughout pregnancy and beyond, why aren't they all like that?

It seems to me that women are getting to decide what life has value and what life does not have value, and that we as a society are having to go along with this incredibly toxic and weird notion because "women's rights, ya'll." 

I hate living in a society THAT stupid and weak. 

All babies are either worth keeping, or they are not depending on what mommy wants to do with the offspring that she created. The science doesn't matter, fetal viability doesn't matter, religion doesn't matter, morality doesn't matter...it's just me and my right to expel that thing I conceived because it's MY body. And then, they (these women) get all insane and demented when trying to defend or promote this view. 

I pity anyone who falls for it.


Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Uragirimono
So using biology and embryology, explain why my uterus should be subject to laws forcing me to share it outside of my consent when no other organ undergoes such legislation. 
Your entire body is "subject to laws forcing" you to not commit murder, theft or rape. You act as though we live in an omni-libertarian world where everyone does as they please. This is not our society - we impose laws which impose restrictions on your body for the better of society. 

ahiyah
ahiyah's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 73
0
1
3
ahiyah's avatar
ahiyah
0
1
3
-->
@Uragirimono
Again, my sex choices are completely mine and I will not entertain suggestions. 
Ooh, get you and your "modern" ways.

*sigh*
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Bones
Correct. A man's penis is subject to far more restrictions by law than a woman's uterus.
Uragirimono
Uragirimono's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 74
0
0
5
Uragirimono's avatar
Uragirimono
0
0
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Name one that requires them to forgo their bodily autonomy.
Uragirimono
Uragirimono's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 74
0
0
5
Uragirimono's avatar
Uragirimono
0
0
5
-->
@Bones
I didn't say "body" I said "organs". There's a difference. 
Murder, theft, and rape violate the bodily autonomy of others. You do not have rights to violate the bodily autonomy of others. 

Name one law that takes bodily autonomy away from one group in favor of another.
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
Good luck. Atheists are liars and never give straight answers. 
Typial ad hominem, translation, I have no rebuttal, so I go after the interloper with whom I disagree with, personally. 
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Uragirimono
I didn't say "body" I said "organs". There's a difference. 
Ok well I can say "the totality of your organs" is restricted by the law.

Murder, theft, and rape violate the bodily autonomy of others. 
And abortion violates the unborn. 

Name one law that takes bodily autonomy away from one group in favor of another.
Rape. The rapists autonomy and desire to rape is intervened by the interest or "favour" of potential victims. 
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Lemming
TWS1405 says elsewhere on this site,
"potentiality ≠ actuality" - TWS1405
 
But potential 'does equal actuality in a sense, to my mind,
An infant is not an adult,
Monkeys exist in actuality more 'persons than an infant,
False equivalency fallacies.

Human beings =/= monkeys.

A born infant = a human being the same as an adult human being.


Ah, and here my nihilism and absurdity rears it's head,
I find myself in difficulty with 'perfect logic, each step and justification shown,

But that's the horrible 'part of it,
I can't even justify 'myself, or other humans as much people as I am,
And my 'care fo-

Ach,
'Too absurd,
. . .
. . .

A zygote, a fetus, an infant,
Are they not all human?
A zygote and fetus are human in origin, but they are not [a] human being. An infant (born) is [a] human being (i.e., [a] person).



Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,346
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@TWS1405
I'll respond in your thread about this.
Uragirimono
Uragirimono's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 74
0
0
5
Uragirimono's avatar
Uragirimono
0
0
5
-->
@ahiyah
Point #2 is very important because in every single circumstance bar abortion, children are more important than female adults. Adults matter less than children, and certainly much less than infants, so why does that suddenly change when someone wants an abortion?
You're using "important" as if I've been arguing value. Adults and children are both valuable. But that value does not give anyone, adult or child, the right to use another's body without their consent. You're welcome to name a legal example where it does.

Why is it that when a woman wants to keep her baby, it is treated with the utmost care and consideration and all efforts are made to look after and embrace this baby by her, her family, her medical practitioners, and the rest of society, but when a woman decides that she doesn't want it it becomes this dispensible cluster of cells that is of no significance to her or the rest of us, and just needs to be disposed of in the most disgusting and brutal way?
Because it's her choice, and what the rest of us think don't matter. The "brutality" is besides the point -- birth is just as brutal as abortions, if not more so depending on gestation time, and yet "I don't want to be ripped open by a baby" isn't seen a valuable to pro-lifers.

It seems to me that women are getting to decide what life has value and what life does not have value, and that we as a society are having to go along with this incredibly toxic and weird notion because "women's rights, ya'll." 
Again with the value thing. Women get to decide what happens to their organs in regards to all other people, including their children. It's not because they're more valuable, it's because no one's value exceeds another person's  autonomy. 

.t's just me and my right to expel that thing I conceived because it's MY body.
Correct, because I don't owe my organs to anyone, including my child. I get to decide what comes out, when it comes out, why it comes out, and how it comes out.

TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@ahiyah
-->@Uragirimono
Here's some non-religious reasons:

  • Empathy for the child. 
Cannot have empathy for that which does not even exist, yet. 


  • Recognizing that children's rights are more important than women's rights.
In no world or society on this planet is a born child's rights more important than the adult's life. The adult contributes to society, a child does not. Especially a pregnancy. It's an affliction, a condition, not [a] human being (i.e., productive member of society). Hence it has no legal rights until BIRTH!


  • Moral consistency, or lack thereof.

You do not even know/understand/comprehend the meaning of the term "moral" where this debate/discussion is concerned. 


  • Recognizing that human life has value and that it is wrong to kill another human, even if it isn't fully formed yet.
Born human life (i.e., [a] human being/[a] person) does have value, a pregnancy does not until birth. A pregnancy is NOT "another human (being)".


  • Taking responsibility and not choosing the easy way out. 
Abortion is never the easy way out, but it is a necessary one that is far more important than having an unwanted child.


Point #2 is very important because in every single circumstance bar abortion, children are more important than female adults. Adults matter less than children, and certainly much less than infants, so why does that suddenly change when someone wants an abortion?
Again, no child is ever more important than an adult. One has value to society, the other doesn't unless raise and educated properly. And since study after study has shown that unwanted children, those born to single parent homes, contribute greatly to the crime problem in human society, abortion reduces crime, among other social/cultural ailments. 


Why is it that when a woman wants to keep her baby, it is treated with the utmost care and consideration and all efforts are made to look after and embrace this baby by her, her family, her medical practitioners, and the rest of society, but when a woman decides that she doesn't want it it becomes this dispensible cluster of cells that is of no significance to her or the rest of us, and just needs to be disposed of in the most disgusting and brutal way?
You are eff'ing delusional! The black out of wedlock birth rate went from 20% to over 70% at the turn of the civil rights movement, which resulted in an exponential increase in criminality among black male youth leading to career adult criminals. Unwanted children, children that a single parent simply cannot care for, becomes society's problem that costs more than just money to deal with. 


I hate living in a society THAT stupid and weak. 
There's that psychological projection, again. 

You have a lot to learn, child. 




Uragirimono
Uragirimono's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 74
0
0
5
Uragirimono's avatar
Uragirimono
0
0
5
-->
@Bones
And abortion violates the unborn. 
The unborn's what? They don't have bodily autonomy to violate. 

Rape. The rapists autonomy and desire to rape is intervened by the interest or "favour" of potential victims. 
Rape victims have bodily autonomy. By the alarming amount of rape mentions in this thread, it seems like the pro-life stance is "I get to rape people if you get to decide how your uterus is used".  For what feels like the 100th time, your freedom ends where bodily autonomy of another begins. The unborn do not have bodily autonomy to violate, because they are not currently autonomous. 


ahiyah
ahiyah's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 73
0
1
3
ahiyah's avatar
ahiyah
0
1
3
-->
@Uragirimono
You're using "important" as if I've been arguing value. Adults and children are both valuable. But that value does not give anyone, adult or child, the right to use another's body without their consent. You're welcome to name a legal example where it does.
I am arguing value, as a reason we don't kill or are not allowed to kill other humans is because they are seen as having value and society deems it wrong to harm other humans to the point of causing an unnatural end to their life.

Because it's her choice, and what the rest of us think don't matter. The "brutality" is besides the point -- birth is just as brutal as abortions, if not more so depending on gestation time, and yet "I don't want to be ripped open by a baby" isn't seen a valuable to pro-lifers.
The "her choice" argument is boring and overused, and not a valid rebuttal. We can all make choices but it doesn't mean that they should be considered good or legal ones, and that they should not invite any opposition. It's really stupid of you to believe that having the power to make a choice ought to result in that choice being accepted by everyone, including those with the ability to decide whether women should have access to legal abortions or not.

Also, childbirth isn't "brutal" lol. I have given birth twice so far, and it was not that.

Birth entails the natural delivery of your baby from your body, abortion entails the forced expulsion of it because you want to kill it and for it to be dead. A loved and cared for baby gets to come out in one piece, while an aborted baby is forced out and then discarded. 

Birthing the baby that you have conceived is natural, aborting it is not.

They couldn't be more different.

Again with the value thing. Women get to decide what happens to their organs in regards to all other people, including their children. It's not because they're more valuable, it's because no one's value exceeds another person's autonomy.
Yeah, value is kind of important when deciding whether we should be able to terminate another human life or not.

Do you actually think that we're allowed to do what we want with our bodies?

If that's the case, why can you be put in a psychiatric hospital against your will if you harm or attempt to harm your body? If it's your body, why won't people let you harm it? 

Correct, because I don't owe my organs to anyone, including my child. I get to decide what comes out, when it comes out, why it comes out, and how it comes out.
That's a very strange and myopic thing to say, lol.
ahiyah
ahiyah's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 73
0
1
3
ahiyah's avatar
ahiyah
0
1
3
-->
@TWS1405
tf? 

Everything you've written is such trash. 
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Uragirimono
The unborn's what? 
A right to life. 

it seems like the pro-life stance is "I get to rape people if you get to decide how your uterus is used"
Both are logically stupid ideas. 

 your freedom ends where bodily autonomy of another begins. The unborn do not have bodily autonomy to violate, because they are not currently autonomous. 
Would you allow for the abortion of an unborn to be partially removed from the mother where head and torso is removed but umbilical chord remains attached? Would you allow 9 month abortions? Would you allow for the killing of babies who are tragically born with requirement of life support since they have no autonomy?  

TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@ahiyah
-->@TWS1405
tf? 

Everything you've written is such trash. 
Easy to claim, harder to prove.

Since you cannot prove it, you lose. And epically so. Child. 

Go play outside and get a life. 
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@ahiyah
I hope you have unprotected sex and get pregnant. Then come back and argue your same nonsensical drivel after you have an abortion because you are too young and financially ill-equipped to have a child for 18 years of your life. 
Uragirimono
Uragirimono's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 74
0
0
5
Uragirimono's avatar
Uragirimono
0
0
5
-->
@Bones
A right to life. 
When outside of pregnancy and birth does one's right to life trump another's right to bodily autonomy?

Would you allow for the abortion of an unborn to be partially removed from the mother where head and torso is removed but umbilical chord remains attached?

I'd support the doctor choosing the best method of my removal. I'm not a doctor, so why would I allow or not allow any medical procedure? I'd trust someone actually trained to make the decision. 

Would you allow 9 month abortions? 
There's no such thing. Babies are born at 9 months.

Would you allow for the killing of babies who are tragically born with requirement of life support since they have no autonomy?  
I would allow the parents to make decisions for that child, including taking it off life support. We already do this -- give parents the medical authority over their children -- so again me "allowing" it is irrelevant.
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Uragirimono
See.
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I don't give two fucks about Donald Trump. What if I'm not an atheist I must want to suck Donald Trump's cock, fuck you, dick head.
Uragirimono
Uragirimono's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 74
0
0
5
Uragirimono's avatar
Uragirimono
0
0
5
-->
@ahiyah
I am arguing value, as a reason we don't kill or are not allowed to kill other humans is because they are seen as having value and society deems it wrong to harm other humans to the point of causing an unnatural end to their life.
This is demonstrably false. We already kill other humans is many socially acceptable ways and none of them are based on value. We don't execute prisoners because they're inherently less valuable than the rest of us. We don't go to war and bomb people because they're inherently of less value. We don't shoot people who break into our homes because they're of less value. Value does not determine who we're okay with killing in societal terms.

It's really stupid of you to believe that having the power to make a choice ought to result in that choice being accepted by everyone, including those with the ability to decide whether women should have access to legal abortions or not.
I don't care if my choices are accepted. I care when my choices are made illegal by the opinions of others. Shun me, scold me, hate me for getting an abortion all you want, I don't care. Don't limit my rights by making laws based on your feelings and we'll be good. What if I thought having more than one kid was immoral? How would you feel if I tried to ban multi-child families? 

Do you actually think that we're allowed to do what we want with our bodies?
Yes, because no one on this thread has given me an example of when we legal require one group to give up their bodily autonomy for the sake of another. Do you think marital rape should be legal? Do you think slavery should be legal? Do you think Christians should drag native children away from their families to re-education centers legally? All of these violations of bodily autonomy used to be legal and socially accepted, and then we grew as a people and said "no, you can't do that anymore." We've long accepted bodily autonomy is real and must be respected -- even you do so. You just exclude pregnant people from it, saying they must be legally required to forfeit their autonomy in favor of the unborn.

If that's the case, why can you be put in a psychiatric hospital against your will if you harm or attempt to harm your body? If it's your body, why won't people let you harm it? 
You're assuming I agree with this. I agree with an individual's right to self harm and don't think suicide should be illegal. Counseling should be available and easily accessible for those who feel like they struggle with self-harm or suicidal thoughts, but it should not include involuntary confinement. 
Uragirimono
Uragirimono's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 74
0
0
5
Uragirimono's avatar
Uragirimono
0
0
5
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
See what?
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I don't give two fucks about Donald Trump. What if I'm not an atheist I must want to suck Donald Trump's cock, fuck you, dick head.
Shouldn’t you be out on a ledge?