5 ms·

Not ignoring it. Just refusing to accept that the rights of the pregnancy supersede the rights of the human carrying it.

MockObject 4y ago
Perhaps "ignoring" means refusing to entertain it even for the sake of argument. Bodily autonomy is probably a weak argument, because it assumes that the fetus isn't a living human being deserving of the same protections against slaughter that you and I enjoy. If it is, bodily autonomy doesn't justify murder. If it's not, then protecting it from abortion is absurd. In neither case though, is bodily autonomy a compelling argument.
- sjostrom7 4y ago
  Disagree. You can turn up the personhood all the way and still, in a scenario where a child was dying and needed a kidney and their parent was the only available match, the parent could not be legally forced to donate it. Why? They own their body and can't be forced to put themselves through bodily harm to help someone else. You seem to be saying that "personhood" should be the deciding factor of abortion rights, but "personhood" is never going to be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Bodily autonomy can and should be.
  - adastra22 4y ago
    Great job. Now take it the other extreme: is it okay to kill a baby that had already been born, but was still attached by the umbilical cord? It’s still, technically, part of the mother’s body at that point.
    - sjostrom7 4y ago
      That's kind of silly. The easiest way to free the one frees the other. We all just want to go about our lives within being forced by law to sacrifice our rights to our bodies.
      - adastra22 4y ago
        So there’s someone to free at all? Then there is an issue of personhood here that you’re ignoring when it is inconvenient. Maybe for you bodily autonomy is more important than the personhood of a developing baby. But that IS a moral determination, a choice of your value system, and it is entirely reasonable for others to disagree on moral terms, making this hardly a clear cut issue.
        sjostrom7 4y ago
        Ok, I agree there, folks will always be at odds re:personhood and the morality of terminating a pregnancy. That's why I don't even bother with "it's a clump of cells" anymore regardless of my beliefs - it's a moot point in the face of our own rights over our own bodies. Codifying one "person"s rights as more important than another is wrong. Using the law to force anyone to suffer bodily harm for the sake of anyone else, even in a case of life or death, is wrong. My thing with the hypothetical kid needing a kidney wasn't that a parent refusing to donate would be a good person, it was that by principle of law it would be immoral to force them to do it. That was taking the "pro-life" perspective all the way to "it's a whole-ass person" and showing that the concept of bodily autonomy still protects the parent, even if you don't agree with what they do. I don't mind if you think I'm a monster for getting an abortion, I just want to ensure that that choice is there for those who want or need it. I get that it's a really intense issue for a lot of people, but all I wish is that folks didn't feel like whether someone else carries their pregnancy to term is a criticism of what they've done or want to do. It's truly not. I know for myself I have a list a mile long of reasons I would never carry or raise a child; some are personal and some aren't, but I am still happy when my loved ones welcome a new member into their family.
  - MockObject 4y ago
    I’m not sure the kidney analogy holds. Kidney donation refusal seems like an act of omission; whereas the active steps to abort a fetus are acts of commission. These are too distinct in ethical discussions. Bodily autonomy is usually clear in most instances, but it might be overridden by personhood, so it doesn’t help resolve the debate to everybody’s satisfaction.

MockObject 4y ago

Perhaps "ignoring" means refusing to entertain it even for the sake of argument. Bodily autonomy is probably a weak argument, because it assumes that the fetus isn't a living human being deserving of the same protections against slaughter that you and I enjoy. If it is, bodily autonomy doesn't justify murder. If it's not, then protecting it from abortion is absurd. In neither case though, is bodily autonomy a compelling argument.

sjostrom7 4y ago
Disagree. You can turn up the personhood all the way and still, in a scenario where a child was dying and needed a kidney and their parent was the only available match, the parent could not be legally forced to donate it. Why? They own their body and can't be forced to put themselves through bodily harm to help someone else. You seem to be saying that "personhood" should be the deciding factor of abortion rights, but "personhood" is never going to be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Bodily autonomy can and should be.
- adastra22 4y ago
  Great job. Now take it the other extreme: is it okay to kill a baby that had already been born, but was still attached by the umbilical cord? It’s still, technically, part of the mother’s body at that point.
  - sjostrom7 4y ago
    That's kind of silly. The easiest way to free the one frees the other. We all just want to go about our lives within being forced by law to sacrifice our rights to our bodies.
    - adastra22 4y ago
      So there’s someone to free at all? Then there is an issue of personhood here that you’re ignoring when it is inconvenient. Maybe for you bodily autonomy is more important than the personhood of a developing baby. But that IS a moral determination, a choice of your value system, and it is entirely reasonable for others to disagree on moral terms, making this hardly a clear cut issue.
      - sjostrom7 4y ago
        Ok, I agree there, folks will always be at odds re:personhood and the morality of terminating a pregnancy. That's why I don't even bother with "it's a clump of cells" anymore regardless of my beliefs - it's a moot point in the face of our own rights over our own bodies. Codifying one "person"s rights as more important than another is wrong. Using the law to force anyone to suffer bodily harm for the sake of anyone else, even in a case of life or death, is wrong. My thing with the hypothetical kid needing a kidney wasn't that a parent refusing to donate would be a good person, it was that by principle of law it would be immoral to force them to do it. That was taking the "pro-life" perspective all the way to "it's a whole-ass person" and showing that the concept of bodily autonomy still protects the parent, even if you don't agree with what they do. I don't mind if you think I'm a monster for getting an abortion, I just want to ensure that that choice is there for those who want or need it. I get that it's a really intense issue for a lot of people, but all I wish is that folks didn't feel like whether someone else carries their pregnancy to term is a criticism of what they've done or want to do. It's truly not. I know for myself I have a list a mile long of reasons I would never carry or raise a child; some are personal and some aren't, but I am still happy when my loved ones welcome a new member into their family.
- MockObject 4y ago
  I’m not sure the kidney analogy holds. Kidney donation refusal seems like an act of omission; whereas the active steps to abort a fetus are acts of commission. These are too distinct in ethical discussions. Bodily autonomy is usually clear in most instances, but it might be overridden by personhood, so it doesn’t help resolve the debate to everybody’s satisfaction.