4 ms·

>> If the fetus is a life, none of this stuff matters. > This is irrelevant to my personal views on abortion because I believe that individuals have rights ove

>> If the fetus is a life, none of this stuff matters. > This is irrelevant to my personal views on abortion because I believe that individuals have rights over their own body which supersede anyone else's rights to their body. It absolutely is relevant, because you view collapses into nonsense unless you believe a fetus is a not an individual and that it has no rights. If the fetus is a person, then you're in a situation where their rights to their own body are getting superseded by another's right. > We hold this as true in all other facets of bodily autonomy. No, not all. You totally have the legal obligation to provide for your children, if you have them, and that almost always involves using your body in some way.

PuppyTailWags 4y ago
> You totally have the legal obligation to provide for your children, if you have them, and that almost always involves using your body in some way You are not legally obligated to donate your organs to your children, fwiw. I think the discussion of ethical and legal obligation cannot possible be given broad swath of "no one is obligated to anyone" nor "you are entirely obligated to someone in every way". This isn't how reality works. Parents are considered obligated to their children, unless they choose not to parent their children and withdraw their parental responsibilities under existent legal frameworks. At the same time, parents are not entirely obligated to their children, as parents are not fined or jailed for not donating their blood or organs.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
jyounker 4y ago
You don't have a legal obligation to feed your children from your own flesh.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > You don't have a legal obligation to feed your children from your own flesh. What a bizarre and morbid misunderstanding. You have the legal obligation to use that "flesh" to acquire food to feed your children. Also, it's not like a fetus eats its mother's flesh from the inside (until I suppose it emerges from the husk like a xenomorph?).
  - AlexandrB 4y ago
    It gets awfully close when it causes organ failure[1]. What about when the child rips open the mother's vulva on the way out? If it's a person, should it be possible to try it for assault? [1] https://www.marchofdimes.org/complications/hellp-syndrome.aspx https://www.marchofdimes.org/complications/hellp-syndrome.as...
    - Jerrrry 4y ago
      Should the mother be tried for false imprisonment?
hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
I completely agree with the comment you are responding to, but it is an argument that actually changed my position relatively recently. I used to believe in the "well, if you believe it is a person, then abortion is murder" argument, but I believe the bodily autonomy argument is much stronger. If you have a child, and you are the the only good potential donor match, and that child will die without, say, a bone-marrow transplant, you are not forced to donate your own bone marrow. Saying "You totally have the legal obligation to provide for your children, if you have them, and that almost always involves using your body in some way" is a poor analogy that really doesn't encompass what it is to have another being living inside you. That's why I think the "viability" standard is the only one that makes sense, and also why that as technology has improved that I think the cutoff date for abortion should be lowered to the new age of viability. Any human should have the right to remove another from their own body. In the case of a child, if we have no technology to allow that child to survive outside the mother, so be it, but I think the much better analogy to forced birthing is actually slavery.

PuppyTailWags 4y ago

> You totally have the legal obligation to provide for your children, if you have them, and that almost always involves using your body in some way You are not legally obligated to donate your organs to your children, fwiw. I think the discussion of ethical and legal obligation cannot possible be given broad swath of "no one is obligated to anyone" nor "you are entirely obligated to someone in every way". This isn't how reality works. Parents are considered obligated to their children, unless they choose not to parent their children and withdraw their parental responsibilities under existent legal frameworks. At the same time, parents are not entirely obligated to their children, as parents are not fined or jailed for not donating their blood or organs.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

jyounker 4y ago

You don't have a legal obligation to feed your children from your own flesh.

tablespoon 4y ago
> You don't have a legal obligation to feed your children from your own flesh. What a bizarre and morbid misunderstanding. You have the legal obligation to use that "flesh" to acquire food to feed your children. Also, it's not like a fetus eats its mother's flesh from the inside (until I suppose it emerges from the husk like a xenomorph?).
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  It gets awfully close when it causes organ failure[1]. What about when the child rips open the mother's vulva on the way out? If it's a person, should it be possible to try it for assault? [1] https://www.marchofdimes.org/complications/hellp-syndrome.aspx https://www.marchofdimes.org/complications/hellp-syndrome.as...
  - Jerrrry 4y ago
    Should the mother be tried for false imprisonment?

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago

I completely agree with the comment you are responding to, but it is an argument that actually changed my position relatively recently. I used to believe in the "well, if you believe it is a person, then abortion is murder" argument, but I believe the bodily autonomy argument is much stronger. If you have a child, and you are the the only good potential donor match, and that child will die without, say, a bone-marrow transplant, you are not forced to donate your own bone marrow. Saying "You totally have the legal obligation to provide for your children, if you have them, and that almost always involves using your body in some way" is a poor analogy that really doesn't encompass what it is to have another being living inside you. That's why I think the "viability" standard is the only one that makes sense, and also why that as technology has improved that I think the cutoff date for abortion should be lowered to the new age of viability. Any human should have the right to remove another from their own body. In the case of a child, if we have no technology to allow that child to survive outside the mother, so be it, but I think the much better analogy to forced birthing is actually slavery.