6 ms·

Not only that but once half of the population has lost bodily autonomy why would anyone believe that their rights are safe? Today a woman can be compelled to u

Not only that but once half of the population has lost bodily autonomy why would anyone believe that their rights are safe? Today a woman can be compelled to use an organ in her body to keep another person alive. What’s to stop the court from ruling that if you have 2 kidneys you can be compelled to donate one to keep someone else alive? What happens when a deadbeat dad is the only match for a child with organ failure? Why shouldn’t they be compelled to give up an organ to keep their offspring alive? Libertarians should be in the streets protesting the loss of bodily autonomy. And all of us should be afraid.

endisneigh 4y ago
I’ve never understood this take - other than rape (in which abortion should be allowed imo), why is it a loss of bodily autonomy? Women choose to have sex consensually, no?
- mindcrime 4y ago
  I don't understand your take. Do you assume that all consensual sex happens with the intention of reproduction?
  - endisneigh 4y ago
    The intention isn’t relevant - sex leading to kids is hardly some unknown fact. Other than rape, in which case agency is removed, why is conception not the point in which the choice is made? Is your opinion that anyone can reneg on known consequences of their actions? Don’t misunderstand, women should have a choice in what their bodies are used for. My assertion is, other than rape, they already have it with respect to having a kid or not.
    - drdaeman 4y ago
      I don't agree or disagree with the consequences part, but... > sex leading to kids is hardly some unknown fact Oh, I'd wish. There are people who still - in the 21st century - do not have like basic knowledge about sexual wellness and have very weird (and sometimes very dangerous) ideas about contraception, safety and risks of pregnancy. I mean, it's hard for any educated person to believe in this shit, but I've met or read some pretty insane opinions. Like people who genuinely believe really weird nonsense such as that virgins cannot get pregnant their first time. And they aren't malicious folks (well, maybe some are, of course) - just awfully misinformed. Humanity is in a very weird place. On the one hand we've walked on the Moon and about to conquer nuclear fusion power, but on the other hand we've just climbed down from the trees and learned how to make a fire.
      - morelisp 4y ago
        We're only 8 years out from "legitimate rape"! How in the world can anyone think legislators and jurists themselves, let alone young people, are receiving sufficient information about sex and pregnancy?
    - nomel 4y ago
      I think it's often misunderstood at how incredibly hard it is to stop reproduction. For example birth control pills are 99% effective. From the NHS: > When taken correctly, the pill is over 99% effective at preventing pregnancy. This means that fewer than 1 in 100 who use the combined pill as contraception will get pregnant in 1 year. So, if you're in a relationship for 5 years, that's 1 in 20. For my group of people I know, this matches up pretty well.
    - mindcrime 4y ago
      The intention isn’t relevant - sex leading to kids is hardly some unknown fact. That's ridiculous. Many people engage in sex using contraceptives design to prevent pregnancy, but we all know that contraceptives aren't 100% reliable. So the possibility of any given sex act leading to kids is absolutely an "unknown". And that's before getting into the point about how, in many places in the world, knowledge of (or access to) contraceptives is withheld from portions of the population to begin with. For that matter, there are some (mostly very young, I expect) who don't understand the whole "sex leads to kids" thing.
    - nomel 4y ago
      I think it's often misunderstood at how incredibly hard it is to stop reproduction. For example birth control pills are 99% effective. From the NHS: > When taken correctly, the pill is over 99% effective at preventing pregnancy. This means that fewer than 1 in 100 who use the combined pill as contraception will get pregnant in 1 year. So, if you're in a relationship for 5 years, that's 1 in 20. For my group of people I know, this matches up pretty well. I have one friend who has three children. They were all conceived while on birth control.
    - LodeOfCode 4y ago
      >Is your opinion that anyone can renege on known consequences of their actions? That's usually how medical treatment works, yes. We don't tell people who fall off a ladder, slice their finger chopping vegetables, or break a bone playing sports "You knew the risk, you're just gonna have to live with the consequences of your choices"
- unop 4y ago
  > Women choose to have sex consensually, no? Consent to sex doesn't imply consent to pregnancy (or even the consent to carry to term after) - it just doesn't follow, even with the risks of pregnancy.
  - endisneigh 4y ago
    Sex inherently has the risk of pregnancy no?
- rfd4sgmk8u 4y ago
  - endisneigh 4y ago
    Why do you think I hate women? In any case women nor men have full autonomy over their body anyway. See Buck v Bell.
    - rfd4sgmk8u 4y ago
      Buck vs Bell is a fucking travesty. You consider it acceptable that the State can sterilize 'feeble minds' because an old man in 1927 said it was cool? How about the realization that the law is an ass, and we need to stand up for human rights?
      - endisneigh 4y ago
        Do you believe prison in general to be acceptable? Why or why not?
        rfd4sgmk8u 4y ago
        I wasn't aware that having a baby was a crime, but yet, failing to birth it appears to be now. nb: Women have gone to jail for miscarriages as a result of such women-hating laws. My thoughts on the prison system are not relevant to supporting that a women can do whatever she wants with her body.
        endisneigh 4y ago
        Women can and do already choose what to do with their body. And rape is already illegal. The current blind spot is that abortion is not federally allowed in the case of rape. And if you’re talking about bodily autonomy of course prison is relevant. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/acres-skin-human-experiments-holmesburg-prison https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/acres-sk...
- simondw 4y ago
  It's a loss of bodily autonomy because, well, that's what bodily autonomy is. The government is compelling you to use (and risk) your body for a particular purpose. That's a separate question from whether that loss of bodily autonomy is justified. > Women choose to have sex consensually, no? Well, yes, sometimes. Maybe you could be more explicit about how you think that justifies the loss of bodily autonomy? For example, maybe you have a principle like "If you played a necessary role in the creation of a person, then you can be compelled to use your body to support their life." Do you think fathers should be compelled to donate blood or organs to their offspring?
  - endisneigh 4y ago
    My argument is that no autonomy is lost since the potential consequences of the actions are known beforehand. No more or less than eating certain foods or consuming certain beverages.
    - schiffern 4y ago
      > the potential consequences of the actions Being forced by the State (ie at the point of a gun) to carry a pregnancy to term is not an inevitable "consequence". It's a choice. Women have a long history of using abortifacients to terminate pregnancy, so there's nothing "natural" or inevitable about forced birth.
      - endisneigh 4y ago
        What? For most of history birth is the inevitable outcome of pregnancy. Women aren’t being forced to give birth.
        schiffern 4y ago
        Okay, so you don't know the history of medicine. That's not uncommon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion In Roman times, Silphium was such a popular abortifacient that the plant was over-harvested to extinction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silphium_(antiquity) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silphium_(antiquity)
lolinder 4y ago
> What happens when a deadbeat dad is the only match for a child with organ failure? Why shouldn’t they be compelled to give up an organ to keep their offspring alive? If you can come up with a way to loan someone an organ for 9 months and then get it back when you're done with it, then this argument would be coherent. As is, I'd re-evaluate it if you have any intention of persuading someone on the opposite side of this issue.
- peter422 4y ago
  Persuasion isn’t that important when the vast majority of the public already agrees with you.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- human_person 4y ago
  Considering pregnancy can result in death (at a higher rate than kidney donation as noted elsewhere in the thread) as well as countless other long term conditions your 9 month limit doesn’t really make sense. But let’s say you could loan out a kidney for a few months, would you really find it acceptable for the state to forcibly seize your kidney to keep someone else alive?
mindcrime 4y ago
Libertarians should be in the streets protesting the loss of bodily autonomy. And all of us should be afraid. I agree, but I also tend to think this battle was lost when the SCOTUS refused to reject the "individual mandate". When you've reduced the notion of individual agency to the level that the State can dictate what items you must purchase, this is an entirely logical consequence.
- usrn 4y ago
  If you take libertarinism to it's extreme like that then they should be protesting the lack of freedom of association as well but none are doing that either.
  - boppo1 4y ago
    But freedom of association is legal.
    - usrn 4y ago
      No. You're legally not allowed to discriminate among customers, employees, neighbors, or renters.
      - boppo1 4y ago
        Would that not be freedom of disassociation?
        usrn 4y ago
        Regardless of what you call it, these are the kinds of ideas you get when you reject the social parts of government and go full libertarian.
- peter422 4y ago
  Fortunately there is nothing else the state forces you to purchase so this is a very clean ideological point you are making.
lfpeb8b45ez 4y ago
One of the reasons abortion is difficult to talk about is that it is the intersection of multiple rights. The principle of bodily autonomy you mention is foundational to our conception of liberty in the US. In this case, however, it intersects with the principle that human life should not be actively ended without extraordinary reason.
- data-ottawa 4y ago
  Capital punishment is legal in 27 states, 20 of which support the death sentence, why is that not inextricably linked with abortion?
- human_person 4y ago
  But it’s not. In no other case is one human forced to sacrifice their own body to keep another human alive. The fetus is welcome to continue living. It simply can’t live in this particular womb. If ‘pro-life’ people genuinely cared about the unborn (rather than controlling women) they would have invested in researching artificial wombs and pregnancy transfers. But they don’t.
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    > In no other case is one human forced to sacrifice their own body to keep another human alive. Here's an analogy: if you're flying people somewhere in your helicopter, are you allowed to push them out, or are you required to "sacrifice" your own helicopter to keep them alive until you land safely? > The fetus is welcome to continue living. It simply can’t live in this particular womb. Your passengers are welcome to stay in the air. They simply can't in that particular helicopter. > If ‘pro-life’ people genuinely cared about the unborn (rather than controlling women) they would have invested in researching artificial wombs and pregnancy transfers. But they don’t. If people genuinely cared about helicopter passengers (rather than controlling pilots), they would have invested in jet packs and antigravity devices. But they don't.

endisneigh 4y ago

I’ve never understood this take - other than rape (in which abortion should be allowed imo), why is it a loss of bodily autonomy? Women choose to have sex consensually, no?

mindcrime 4y ago
I don't understand your take. Do you assume that all consensual sex happens with the intention of reproduction?
- endisneigh 4y ago
  The intention isn’t relevant - sex leading to kids is hardly some unknown fact. Other than rape, in which case agency is removed, why is conception not the point in which the choice is made? Is your opinion that anyone can reneg on known consequences of their actions? Don’t misunderstand, women should have a choice in what their bodies are used for. My assertion is, other than rape, they already have it with respect to having a kid or not.
  - drdaeman 4y ago
    I don't agree or disagree with the consequences part, but... > sex leading to kids is hardly some unknown fact Oh, I'd wish. There are people who still - in the 21st century - do not have like basic knowledge about sexual wellness and have very weird (and sometimes very dangerous) ideas about contraception, safety and risks of pregnancy. I mean, it's hard for any educated person to believe in this shit, but I've met or read some pretty insane opinions. Like people who genuinely believe really weird nonsense such as that virgins cannot get pregnant their first time. And they aren't malicious folks (well, maybe some are, of course) - just awfully misinformed. Humanity is in a very weird place. On the one hand we've walked on the Moon and about to conquer nuclear fusion power, but on the other hand we've just climbed down from the trees and learned how to make a fire.
    - morelisp 4y ago
      We're only 8 years out from "legitimate rape"! How in the world can anyone think legislators and jurists themselves, let alone young people, are receiving sufficient information about sex and pregnancy?
  - nomel 4y ago
    I think it's often misunderstood at how incredibly hard it is to stop reproduction. For example birth control pills are 99% effective. From the NHS: > When taken correctly, the pill is over 99% effective at preventing pregnancy. This means that fewer than 1 in 100 who use the combined pill as contraception will get pregnant in 1 year. So, if you're in a relationship for 5 years, that's 1 in 20. For my group of people I know, this matches up pretty well.
  - mindcrime 4y ago
    The intention isn’t relevant - sex leading to kids is hardly some unknown fact. That's ridiculous. Many people engage in sex using contraceptives design to prevent pregnancy, but we all know that contraceptives aren't 100% reliable. So the possibility of any given sex act leading to kids is absolutely an "unknown". And that's before getting into the point about how, in many places in the world, knowledge of (or access to) contraceptives is withheld from portions of the population to begin with. For that matter, there are some (mostly very young, I expect) who don't understand the whole "sex leads to kids" thing.
  - nomel 4y ago
    I think it's often misunderstood at how incredibly hard it is to stop reproduction. For example birth control pills are 99% effective. From the NHS: > When taken correctly, the pill is over 99% effective at preventing pregnancy. This means that fewer than 1 in 100 who use the combined pill as contraception will get pregnant in 1 year. So, if you're in a relationship for 5 years, that's 1 in 20. For my group of people I know, this matches up pretty well. I have one friend who has three children. They were all conceived while on birth control.
  - LodeOfCode 4y ago
    >Is your opinion that anyone can renege on known consequences of their actions? That's usually how medical treatment works, yes. We don't tell people who fall off a ladder, slice their finger chopping vegetables, or break a bone playing sports "You knew the risk, you're just gonna have to live with the consequences of your choices"
unop 4y ago
> Women choose to have sex consensually, no? Consent to sex doesn't imply consent to pregnancy (or even the consent to carry to term after) - it just doesn't follow, even with the risks of pregnancy.
- endisneigh 4y ago
  Sex inherently has the risk of pregnancy no?
rfd4sgmk8u 4y ago
- endisneigh 4y ago
  Why do you think I hate women? In any case women nor men have full autonomy over their body anyway. See Buck v Bell.
  - rfd4sgmk8u 4y ago
    Buck vs Bell is a fucking travesty. You consider it acceptable that the State can sterilize 'feeble minds' because an old man in 1927 said it was cool? How about the realization that the law is an ass, and we need to stand up for human rights?
    - endisneigh 4y ago
      Do you believe prison in general to be acceptable? Why or why not?
      - rfd4sgmk8u 4y ago
        I wasn't aware that having a baby was a crime, but yet, failing to birth it appears to be now. nb: Women have gone to jail for miscarriages as a result of such women-hating laws. My thoughts on the prison system are not relevant to supporting that a women can do whatever she wants with her body.
        endisneigh 4y ago
        Women can and do already choose what to do with their body. And rape is already illegal. The current blind spot is that abortion is not federally allowed in the case of rape. And if you’re talking about bodily autonomy of course prison is relevant. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/acres-skin-human-experiments-holmesburg-prison https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/acres-sk...
simondw 4y ago
It's a loss of bodily autonomy because, well, that's what bodily autonomy is. The government is compelling you to use (and risk) your body for a particular purpose. That's a separate question from whether that loss of bodily autonomy is justified. > Women choose to have sex consensually, no? Well, yes, sometimes. Maybe you could be more explicit about how you think that justifies the loss of bodily autonomy? For example, maybe you have a principle like "If you played a necessary role in the creation of a person, then you can be compelled to use your body to support their life." Do you think fathers should be compelled to donate blood or organs to their offspring?
- endisneigh 4y ago
  My argument is that no autonomy is lost since the potential consequences of the actions are known beforehand. No more or less than eating certain foods or consuming certain beverages.
  - schiffern 4y ago
    > the potential consequences of the actions Being forced by the State (ie at the point of a gun) to carry a pregnancy to term is not an inevitable "consequence". It's a choice. Women have a long history of using abortifacients to terminate pregnancy, so there's nothing "natural" or inevitable about forced birth.
    - endisneigh 4y ago
      What? For most of history birth is the inevitable outcome of pregnancy. Women aren’t being forced to give birth.
      - schiffern 4y ago
        Okay, so you don't know the history of medicine. That's not uncommon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion In Roman times, Silphium was such a popular abortifacient that the plant was over-harvested to extinction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silphium_(antiquity) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silphium_(antiquity)

lolinder 4y ago

> What happens when a deadbeat dad is the only match for a child with organ failure? Why shouldn’t they be compelled to give up an organ to keep their offspring alive? If you can come up with a way to loan someone an organ for 9 months and then get it back when you're done with it, then this argument would be coherent. As is, I'd re-evaluate it if you have any intention of persuading someone on the opposite side of this issue.

peter422 4y ago
Persuasion isn’t that important when the vast majority of the public already agrees with you.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
human_person 4y ago
Considering pregnancy can result in death (at a higher rate than kidney donation as noted elsewhere in the thread) as well as countless other long term conditions your 9 month limit doesn’t really make sense. But let’s say you could loan out a kidney for a few months, would you really find it acceptable for the state to forcibly seize your kidney to keep someone else alive?

mindcrime 4y ago

Libertarians should be in the streets protesting the loss of bodily autonomy. And all of us should be afraid. I agree, but I also tend to think this battle was lost when the SCOTUS refused to reject the "individual mandate". When you've reduced the notion of individual agency to the level that the State can dictate what items you must purchase, this is an entirely logical consequence.

usrn 4y ago
If you take libertarinism to it's extreme like that then they should be protesting the lack of freedom of association as well but none are doing that either.
- boppo1 4y ago
  But freedom of association is legal.
  - usrn 4y ago
    No. You're legally not allowed to discriminate among customers, employees, neighbors, or renters.
    - boppo1 4y ago
      Would that not be freedom of disassociation?
      - usrn 4y ago
        Regardless of what you call it, these are the kinds of ideas you get when you reject the social parts of government and go full libertarian.
peter422 4y ago
Fortunately there is nothing else the state forces you to purchase so this is a very clean ideological point you are making.

lfpeb8b45ez 4y ago

One of the reasons abortion is difficult to talk about is that it is the intersection of multiple rights. The principle of bodily autonomy you mention is foundational to our conception of liberty in the US. In this case, however, it intersects with the principle that human life should not be actively ended without extraordinary reason.

data-ottawa 4y ago
Capital punishment is legal in 27 states, 20 of which support the death sentence, why is that not inextricably linked with abortion?
human_person 4y ago
But it’s not. In no other case is one human forced to sacrifice their own body to keep another human alive. The fetus is welcome to continue living. It simply can’t live in this particular womb. If ‘pro-life’ people genuinely cared about the unborn (rather than controlling women) they would have invested in researching artificial wombs and pregnancy transfers. But they don’t.
- josephcsible 4y ago
  > In no other case is one human forced to sacrifice their own body to keep another human alive. Here's an analogy: if you're flying people somewhere in your helicopter, are you allowed to push them out, or are you required to "sacrifice" your own helicopter to keep them alive until you land safely? > The fetus is welcome to continue living. It simply can’t live in this particular womb. Your passengers are welcome to stay in the air. They simply can't in that particular helicopter. > If ‘pro-life’ people genuinely cared about the unborn (rather than controlling women) they would have invested in researching artificial wombs and pregnancy transfers. But they don’t. If people genuinely cared about helicopter passengers (rather than controlling pilots), they would have invested in jet packs and antigravity devices. But they don't.