4 ms·

The fetus clearly has no right to control the mother's body, only its own[0]. Extricate it without otherwise injuring it and see if it can survive on its own, o

The fetus clearly has no right to control the mother's body, only its own[0]. Extricate it without otherwise injuring it and see if it can survive on its own, or with whatever degree of medical intervention the "pro-life" crowd is willing to pay for. [0] Assuming fetuses had rights, of course, which is obviously absurd. That requires the capability for deliberate action and the ability and willingness to take responsibility for the effects of your actions on others. Without that you may be alive and biologically "human" but you're still more an animal than a person--at any age.

fzeroracer 4y ago
It's not 'obviously absurd' because a significant amount of the pro-life people pushing the anti-abortion rhetoric believe no abortion should be allowed and that all fetuses have rights, period. Like the fact that this debate still exists even after this constitutional amendment supposedly crosses both aisles does not fix the problem at all.
- nybble41 4y ago
  The point was that even if you take the absurd position that fetuses have rights, a constitutional right to bodily autonomy would--among other things--make it obviously unconstitutional to force the mother to continue to serve as a host against her will.
  - fzeroracer 4y ago
    Again, they would simply either argue that the rights of the fetus supercede the rights of the mother, or that even though the mother has a right to bodily autonomy she would be committing murder and could still be put on trial for murder. These are lines of arguments they already use. A constitutional right to bodily autonomy doesn't change the math at all.
    - nybble41 4y ago
      > argue that the rights of the fetus supercede the rights of the mother The whole point of the amendment is to make it explicit that they don't. That isn't how rights work anyway; it's never a matter of priority, one right vs. another. Any positive action which would infringe on someone else's rights is forbidden, including in particular using someone else's property, including their body, without their consent. But merely not doing anything for them--non-action--is always an option. The fetus is the one taking from the mother--that's the action. The mother merely wants this to stop. There is no conflict of rights. The fetus's rights, such as they are, are not being infringed. > even though the mother has a right to bodily autonomy she would be committing murder This line of argumentation would prove far too much. Refusing to serve as someone else's life support system is not murder. And again, the point of the amendment would be to make that explicit.
      - fzeroracer 4y ago
        > The whole point of the amendment is to make it explicit that they don't. That isn't how rights work anyway; it's never a matter of priority, one right vs. another. This is exactly how rights work, how they're debated and how the supreme court rules. Like the constitution says you have freedom of speech, but you don't have an absolute right to freedom of speech. You cannot go on someone else's property and start yelling because they have the right to kick you off, violating your right to freedom of speech. What you're trying to do is frame it in a way that makes sense to yourself, which is great, but is not how things are decided by the judiciary. Which is my entire point: It doesn't matter if you explicitly say bodily autonomy is sacred in a constitutional amendment because ultimately the supreme court is whom interprets that. The only way you could in theory do something like this would be to have an amendment that outright says abortion is legal, but that wouldn't pass for obvious reasons. You really need to go and try to debate more pro-life individuals because these are all things I've encountered while debating them. The idea that this line of thinking is 'too much' when that's literally what's happening in places like my current state of Texas means you really need to experience what's actually going on.
        nybble41 4y ago

fzeroracer 4y ago

It's not 'obviously absurd' because a significant amount of the pro-life people pushing the anti-abortion rhetoric believe no abortion should be allowed and that all fetuses have rights, period. Like the fact that this debate still exists even after this constitutional amendment supposedly crosses both aisles does not fix the problem at all.

nybble41 4y ago
The point was that even if you take the absurd position that fetuses have rights, a constitutional right to bodily autonomy would--among other things--make it obviously unconstitutional to force the mother to continue to serve as a host against her will.
- fzeroracer 4y ago
  Again, they would simply either argue that the rights of the fetus supercede the rights of the mother, or that even though the mother has a right to bodily autonomy she would be committing murder and could still be put on trial for murder. These are lines of arguments they already use. A constitutional right to bodily autonomy doesn't change the math at all.
  - nybble41 4y ago
    > argue that the rights of the fetus supercede the rights of the mother The whole point of the amendment is to make it explicit that they don't. That isn't how rights work anyway; it's never a matter of priority, one right vs. another. Any positive action which would infringe on someone else's rights is forbidden, including in particular using someone else's property, including their body, without their consent. But merely not doing anything for them--non-action--is always an option. The fetus is the one taking from the mother--that's the action. The mother merely wants this to stop. There is no conflict of rights. The fetus's rights, such as they are, are not being infringed. > even though the mother has a right to bodily autonomy she would be committing murder This line of argumentation would prove far too much. Refusing to serve as someone else's life support system is not murder. And again, the point of the amendment would be to make that explicit.
    - fzeroracer 4y ago
      > The whole point of the amendment is to make it explicit that they don't. That isn't how rights work anyway; it's never a matter of priority, one right vs. another. This is exactly how rights work, how they're debated and how the supreme court rules. Like the constitution says you have freedom of speech, but you don't have an absolute right to freedom of speech. You cannot go on someone else's property and start yelling because they have the right to kick you off, violating your right to freedom of speech. What you're trying to do is frame it in a way that makes sense to yourself, which is great, but is not how things are decided by the judiciary. Which is my entire point: It doesn't matter if you explicitly say bodily autonomy is sacred in a constitutional amendment because ultimately the supreme court is whom interprets that. The only way you could in theory do something like this would be to have an amendment that outright says abortion is legal, but that wouldn't pass for obvious reasons. You really need to go and try to debate more pro-life individuals because these are all things I've encountered while debating them. The idea that this line of thinking is 'too much' when that's literally what's happening in places like my current state of Texas means you really need to experience what's actually going on.
      - nybble41 4y ago