7 ms·
If you invite someone onto your submarine, and take them down to the bottom of the ocean, but then they suffer some accident and need to be taken back to the su
by dane-pgp 4y ago
If you invite someone onto your submarine, and take them down to the bottom of the ocean, but then they suffer some accident and need to be taken back to the surface for medical attention, it isn't slavery for the law to force you to pilot the submarine to the nearest port.
Whether any of that is relevant to the complicated issue of abortion is another matter, but I think Margaret Atwood is glossing over some important questions.
- trasz 4y agoDriving a submarine wherever you want isn’t a fundamental human right. Deciding about one’s own body is. A better example would be forcing someone to become an organ donor to save someone else. That’s pretty much equivalent to abortion ban.
- dane-pgp 4y ago> Deciding about one’s own body is. But deciding about an unborn child's body isn't. I really don't think your position is as incontrovertible as you're suggesting, which is why this issue doesn't have any easy answers.
- trasz 4y agoAbortion isn’t deciding about fetus body, same way refusing to donate an organ for life-saving transplant isn’t deciding about transplant receiver body.
- Ekaros 4y agoI would think fair compromise is to ban destructive abortions. That means it would have to be natural of c-section to remove the fetus. Then it is up to fetus to survive outside.
- trasz 4y agoWould forcing people to donate only some non-critical parts of their body to save somebody else be a fair compromise to you?
- dane-pgp 4y agoThere's a big difference between allowing someone with an illness to naturally die by not donating your organ to them, and deliberately carrying out an abortion with the intent to kill a developing child. The law (and the field of ethics) has always distinguished between acts of commission and acts of omission, and also taken into account the intent of the actor. If a stranger's house is broken into and their TV stolen, and you could have prevented that by sleeping over at their house, that doesn't mean you are an accomplice by sleeping in your own house. Anyway, I'm glad you're thinking about this, because it's a complicated issue and it needs multiple perspectives to sharpen our thinking.
- trasz 4y agoIn other words, if somebody is violating your bodily freedom, you don’t deserve the right to defend in a way that would harm them? Abortion isn’t a complicated issue. It’s a typical science/ethics vs alt right stupidity issue. The only thing complicated about it is the prevailing political correctness towards religion.
- dane-pgp 4y ago> you don’t deserve the right to defend in a way that would harm them? If that's your strawman interpretation of what I said, then let me turn it around and infer your position: People's rights should be based on their ability to do harm to those trying to violate their bodily freedom. I don't think that actually is your position, but it is at least consistent with your view that vulnerable children should have no rights at all.
- trasz 4y agoIt's not a strawman, this is literally what you said above: that bodily freedom (in this case abortion) does not imply the right to actively defend against something/someone violating this freedom (in this case the foetus). Children of course do have rights, because they don't invade anyone's freedom, in particular they don't parasite on another person's body against that persons will. As opposed to unwanted pregnancies.
- DamnYuppie 4y agoAbortions can be easily avoided if people didn't have unprotected sex with people they don't wish to raise a family with. They had complete control over their body and who they shared it with but just don't want to deal with any of the consequences of it, I find it all very sad.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- HappyJoy 4y agoNope, had protected sex with my wife and got pregnant (pill plus condom). We weren't ready for a kid and had an abortion. It's not black and white. Please, don't make it out to be.
- trasz 4y agoPedestrian accidents can be easily avoided if people didn’t try to cross the street. Would you advocate banning medical aid to pedestrians? Because that’s your reasoning above.
- the_only_law 4y agoTbh I’ve seen people argue things along these lines.
- cr__ 4y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape
- moistly 4y agoI can’t even. Is it ignorance? Malice? Trolling? Whatever it is, it’s despicable and doesn’t belong on HN.
- cyphercat 4y agoYou pretty much touched on the central issue. "Sex without consequences" is pretty much what's at stake here. And you start telling people they can't just go around having sex with whoever, you really kick the hornets nest.