Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Results 1 to 18 of 18
  1. #1
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,359
    Post Thanks / Like

    pro-choice argument

    I came across a pretty good argument for the pro-choice position that I will forward.

    The primary conflict in the abortion debate is the life of the fetus vs. the right of the mother to remove the fetus from the womb before it's viable which results in the fetus' death.

    And the pro-life side would argue that the fetus should be treated like a born person and therefore its life should override the woman's right to not be forced to keep the fetus in her womb until it is viable.

    But it seems that even if we are to treat the fetus as a legal equal to a born person, that still would not give it the right to use the woman's body to keep itself alive. Because a born person doesn't have the right to another person's body even to keep himself or herself alive.

    As an example, if someone needs a kidney transplant to survive but there are no available kidneys, the law would let this person die before it would force another human to give up a kidney to save a life. Or if a person needs bone marrow, we don't force someone to give up bone marrow even if it's necessary to save a life.

    So even if we do agree that a fetus has the same rights as a born person, one of those rights does not appear to include being able to use another's body against their will to keep oneself alive.

  2. Likes Squatch347, CowboyX, MindTrap028 liked this post
  3. #2
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,105
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: pro-choice argument

    The primary problem with this ops argument, is that it treats the woman as a kind of neutral bistandard. If you need a kidney, I literally had nothing to do with your situation, and that is why I don't owe you my kidney.

    That is not the case with abortion. The woman tool direct action which created the life the op assumes she has no obligation to.

    So if we truly treat the unborn just like the born then the woman and man have an inherent obligation to the well-being of the unborn. Just as a mother who doesn't feed a newborn so that it dies, it is the same for a woman who would evict the unborn.

    ---
    Lb of flesh without blood --
    Another thing is that, the unborn are not simply evicted they are first killed. So the argument would still fail because it causes death as a primary cause, not as a secondary effect.
    So I may not have a right to your kidney, but you don't get to rip ylmy arms and legs off.
    To serve man.

  4. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
  5. #3
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,359
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: pro-choice argument

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The primary problem with this ops argument, is that it treats the woman as a kind of neutral bistandard. If you need a kidney, I literally had nothing to do with your situation, and that is why I don't owe you my kidney.
    Wrong. I am not entitled to your kidney because there is absolutely no legal principle where person A is entitled to the body part of Person B, regardless of relationship or circumstance. Even if you were directly responsible for my kidney failure (like if you intentionally poisoned me, causing the kidney failure) you STILL would not be legally required to give me a kidney.

    So I'm not ignoring the mother's involvement in the situation. But my argument includes the correct premise that this involvement makes no difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That is not the case with abortion. The woman tool direct action which created the life the op assumes she has no obligation to.
    The action in question is conceiving the child. Is the child entitled to any of her body parts once it is born because she conceived the child? No. The same should apply to before it is born.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So if we truly treat the unborn just like the born then the woman and man have an inherent obligation to the well-being of the unborn. Just as a mother who doesn't feed a newborn so that it dies, it is the same for a woman who would evict the unborn.
    The mother is obligated to see that the child is fed. She is not obligated to give up part of her body even if failing to make the sacrifice would result in the child's death.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Another thing is that, the unborn are not simply evicted they are first killed. So the argument would still fail because it causes death as a primary cause, not as a secondary effect.
    Please support that the fetus is ALWAYS killed prior to eviction (not sometimes, but always) if you are going to continue with this particular argument.

    I know for a fact that the morning after pill prevents the embryo from implanting on the uterine wall and therefore it is still alive when it leaves the body.
    Last edited by mican333; June 12th, 2019 at 12:46 PM.

  6. #4
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,105
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: pro-choice argument

    So the kidney example only goes so far. The mother doesn't give up any body part in the way that a kidney transplant does.

    My point is first to contradict that the mother doesnt owe Anything at all. I don't think you objected to that. So I will ask for clarity in that point.
    The second is that the mother doesn't owe something related to her personal body. Which I think your position is vague on (I won't say incorrect because the kidney thing was an analogy I thought) so I will ask for clarification there as well.
    My third point is that the mother is the initiator of the relationship in whatever form it is, and as such can't simply retract her side as it does irreperable damage to another innocent party.

    Finally I argue that there are inherent obligations to motherhood.
    These last two points are related to my request for clarification on what you mean by "her body". Do you insist that it is exactly like giving a kidney?

    I hope you see the above as an exploration of your position as opposed to a direct challenge to it.

    Finally, to your challenge. I don't think it is a reasonable one. I do not claim that I every instance, but your referance to abortion was unspecific. If you conciede that it is a valid point where it applies, then we can narrow the discussion down to just those few days after sex and before implantarion.
    To serve man.

  7. #5
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,359
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: pro-choice argument

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So the kidney example only goes so far. The mother doesn't give up any body part in the way that a kidney transplant does.
    The kidney is just an example that demonstrates the general principle that born people have no legal obligation to give any body part or fluid to another born human, even if it's to save that person's life. Not just kidneys but anything. Not even blood.

    And I see nothing about the person being unborn that changes the equation.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    My point is first to contradict that the mother doesnt owe Anything at all. I don't think you objected to that. So I will ask for clarity in that point.
    Does the mother owe her born children a portion of her body? Of course not. I don't see why the child being pre-born should be any different.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The second is that the mother doesn't owe something related to her personal body. Which I think your position is vague on (I won't say incorrect because the kidney thing was an analogy I thought) so I will ask for clarification there as well.
    Again, no one can be forced to give up part of their body even if it's to save the life of someone else. Not even blood. So I am stating a general principle that our society seems to consistently follow.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    My third point is that the mother is the initiator of the relationship in whatever form it is, and as such can't simply retract her side as it does irreperable damage to another innocent party.
    No less harm than letting a born child die by refusing to give up a portion of one's body. If we can't force a mother to do that for her born children, I don't see why we should initiate such force in regards to her unborn children.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Finally I argue that there are inherent obligations to motherhood.
    Apparently whatever they are, they don't override a person's right to not involuntarily give up a part of their body.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Finally, to your challenge. I don't think it is a reasonable one. I do not claim that I every instance, but your referance to abortion was unspecific.
    Your argument was the abortion involves killing the fetus before evacuation and therefore killing it is the primary goal. You have apparently retracted this position so I consider this particular argument of yours to be retracted.

    If it's not retracted, please restate it without using an inaccurate statement as its premise.
    Last edited by mican333; June 13th, 2019 at 01:30 PM.

  8. #6
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,607
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: pro-choice argument

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    As an example, if someone needs a kidney transplant to survive but there are no available kidneys, the law would let this person die before it would force another human to give up a kidney to save a life. Or if a person needs bone marrow, we don't force someone to give up bone marrow even if it's necessary to save a life.

    So even if we do agree that a fetus has the same rights as a born person, one of those rights does not appear to include being able to use another's body against their will to keep oneself alive.
    Would one of conjoined twins, refusing to share use of body parts, have the right to murder the other?

    It seems to me that you are conflating "killing" (the act of abortion) with "letting die" (not providing a liver transplant). Is there no difference to you?

    Another hypothetical - If a mother refused to lift her daughter out from in front of the way of an oncoming car, would she not be guilty of a crime (negligent homicide or involuntary manslaughter or something) when the child is killed? Or would she be found innocent because the child had no right to the use of her mother's arms?
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  9. #7
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,105
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: pro-choice argument

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    The kidney is just an example that demonstrates the general principle that born people have no legal obligation to give any body part or fluid to another born human, even if it's to save that person's life. Not just kidneys but anything. Not even blood.

    And I see nothing about the person being unborn that changes the equation.
    I don't think that is true. For example a woman who is lactating, would be put in jail for murder if she refused to feed her baby and it died as a result.
    Even assuming an extreme instance of there being no other "food" for the child (only enough for her), an argument as you are making would not hold.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Does the mother owe her born children a portion of her body? Of course not. I don't see why the child being pre-born should be any different.
    Again, yes. In many ways.
    For example, a mother of a new born is OBLIGATED to carry the child. If she refused to do it at all, she would be punished by law for criminal neglect.
    As carrying a person involves her body, then I think it fulfills the idea sufficiently to falsify your assertion. (I see even made a similar point)

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Again, no one can be forced to give up part of their body even if it's to save the life of someone else. Not even blood. So I am stating a general principle that our society seems to consistently follow.
    I think you are creating a categorical fallacy. the "our body" thing applies to many different things in many different ways.
    so it isn't enough to appeal to giving a kidney, as there is nothing like that in the mother/child relationship definition, even for the born.
    I think I have pointed out above several terms of the relationship of a born child that is very much applicable.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    No less harm than letting a born child die by refusing to give up a portion of one's body. If we can't force a mother to do that for her born children, I don't see why we should initiate such force in regards to her unborn children.
    I address the body issue above. But you are missing the point I made here.
    The point is that, IF it is a part of the relationship that SHE initiates, then she can be obligated in that sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Apparently whatever they are, they don't override a person's right to not involuntarily give up a part of their body.
    Objectivly false. As exemplified in two exampls above. I don't mean to repeat myself.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Your argument was the abortion involves killing the fetus before evacuation and therefore killing it is the primary goal. You have apparently retracted this position so I consider this particular argument of yours to be retracted.

    If it's not retracted, please restate it without using an inaccurate statement as its premise.
    My statement is that your right to not give me a kidney. (IE your owe part of your body argument)
    doesn't mean that you get to cut my arms and legs off. (or otherwise kill the unborn).

    This has not been retracted, and your false assertion that it must apply to ALL abortions if a fallacious straw-man.
    Nothing about the statement is inaccurate.

    So I'll assume that you are limiting your argument for abortion only to those that do not kill the child before eviction.
    Which I think is basically the RU486 emergency contraceptive type abortions. (feel free to clarify)
    Honestly, I think it is great to agree that your argument simply doesn't apply to the vast majority of abortions.
    To serve man.

  10. #8
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,359
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: pro-choice argument

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I don't think that is true. For example a woman who is lactating, would be put in jail for murder if she refused to feed her baby and it died as a result.
    Even assuming an extreme instance of there being no other "food" for the child (only enough for her), an argument as you are making would not hold.
    How do you know that?

    I think if the woman honestly had no access to food for her child and therefore was unable to feed him except for her own breast milk, she probably would not be legally punished denying breast milk. In fact, I would predict that if this situation ever happened, she would not be punished under the principle that I am forwarding in my argument (that one can never be forced to give up part of their body even if it's to save another's life). In reality, if she were to be legally punished for neglect leading to death, the question of why she didn't procure food, like purchase formula with her welfare money for her child (assuming the issue is poverty) would be larger factor than her not giving it breast milk.

    But until such a case actually happens and you are shown to be correct, this point of yours is not supported.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Again, yes. In many ways.
    For example, a mother of a new born is OBLIGATED to carry the child. If she refused to do it at all, she would be punished by law for criminal neglect.
    As carrying a person involves her body, then I think it fulfills the idea sufficiently to falsify your assertion. (I see even made a similar point)
    Since a mother can give a child up for adoption upon its birth, they are never obligated to physically carry the child.

    And the use of the body I am referring to is actually giving up part of one's physical body, not using their body to aid the child (such as using one's arms to pick up a child). When pregnant, the child is taking nutrients from the mother and therefore she is literally giving the child part of her body.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I think you are creating a categorical fallacy. the "our body" thing applies to many different things in many different ways.
    so it isn't enough to appeal to giving a kidney, as there is nothing like that in the mother/child relationship definition, even for the born.
    I am not appealing to giving the kidney. I am using the kidney as an example of the principle of giving up part of one's body. In pregnancy, the "giving up" is letting the fetus take nutrients from one's body.

    And I have yet to see a valid rebuttal to my observation that we do not allow person A to take from person B's body, even if it's necessary to save person A's life.

    I am going to use the term "body autonomy" to refer to the principle of not having to give up part of one's body against one's will.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I address the body issue above. But you are missing the point I made here.
    The point is that, IF it is a part of the relationship that SHE initiates, then she can be obligated in that sense.
    I assume you are saying that she initiated a relationship with the child upon conceiving it and has some obligation to the child because of that.

    She certainly does not have any legally-binding obligation to have a relationship with the child once it is born. She can immediately give it up for adoption and sever all relationship to it.

    So forcing her to continue a "relationship" with the unborn child is in essence giving her an obligation to the unborn that she does not have with the born.

    If we are to treat the unborn the same as the born, the birth mother has absolutely no obligation to the child just because she is the one who conceived it.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    My statement is that your right to not give me a kidney. (IE your owe part of your body argument)
    doesn't mean that you get to cut my arms and legs off. (or otherwise kill the unborn).

    This has not been retracted, and your false assertion that it must apply to ALL abortions if a fallacious straw-man.
    Nothing about the statement is inaccurate.
    Well, your argument, as I read it, was about abortion in general so showing that your statement does not apply to some abortions shows that it doesn't apply to abortion in general.

    As an example, if I said trees have leaves and then you showed that some trees don't have leaves, then my statement would not be an accurate statement about trees in general.

    So it sounds like there might be a misunderstanding of what your argument is or what my response is so let's look at the statement of yours that I was addressing.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Another thing is that, the unborn are not simply evicted they are first killed. So the argument would still fail because it causes death as a primary cause, not as a secondary effect.
    This argument, as presented, is about abortion in general as it argues in abortion, death is the primary cause because the fetus is killed before evicted. But as I showed, that is not always true that the fetus is killed before eviction so it's likewise not uniformly true that death is the primary cause and therefore your argument does not apply to abortion in general.

    The death of the fetus is an effect of abortion, not the purpose of abortion. Likewise, a person dying because there were no kidneys available when needed is the effect of observing body autonomy, not the purpose of body autonomy.


    ------------------------------------

    And a different, as I suppose even stronger, argument along the same lines is the fact that giving birth is sometimes fatal for the mother. Apparently death is 14 times more likely to occur in giving birth than it is when having an abortion (and I will support this if challenge but for now I'll assume this statistic will be accepted in this debate). So even beyond the issue of body autonomy, if we force all women to carry their pregnancy to term, we are forcing some of them to die so that others may live (or die in vain if the baby doesn't survive also).

    I would call that the ultimate violation of body autonomy.

    I can't think of another instance where the government forces people who don't volunteer to take such a risk to risk (soldiers take risks but then they volunteer for their service) their lives for the sake of another person.

    ---------- Post added at 08:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:14 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Would one of conjoined twins, refusing to share use of body parts, have the right to murder the other?
    I'm sure the body part in question would be considered to belong to both of the twins so one cannot claim unique possession and kill the other one for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    It seems to me that you are conflating "killing" (the act of abortion) with "letting die" (not providing a liver transplant). Is there no difference to you?
    There are difference but there are no relevant differences in regards to my argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Another hypothetical - If a mother refused to lift her daughter out from in front of the way of an oncoming car, would she not be guilty of a crime (negligent homicide or involuntary manslaughter or something) when the child is killed? Or would she be found innocent because the child had no right to the use of her mother's arms?
    I am referring to giving up one's body parts/fluids, not using them to help someone so your analogy is not relevant. When a woman is pregnant, she is giving up some of her bodily fluids (like nutrients) for the fetus.

    And likewise when she give birth, she is putting her physical self at risk (it's sometime fatal) and going back to your analogy, if the mother didn't save her child because she correctly figured that she would be putting her own life in jeopardy if she tried, she probably would not be legally punished.
    Last edited by mican333; June 13th, 2019 at 06:48 PM.

  11. #9
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,607
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: pro-choice argument

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I'm sure the body part in question would be considered to belong to both of the twins so one cannot claim unique possession and kill the other one for it.
    Okay, I'll accept that for now while I do some more reading on the subject.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    There are difference but there are no relevant differences in regards to my argument.
    Then your argument ignores the basis for how people and society typically determine right and wrong when it comes to the taking of human life. In other situations, killing an innocent life is wrong, while letting it die may be considered differently, depending on the specifics. You're making a Special Pleading by saying what normally would apply does not in the case of a pregnant mother. And the argument in support of that pleading (below) doesn't work.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I am referring to giving up one's body parts/fluids, not using them to help someone so your analogy is not relevant. When a woman is pregnant, she is giving up some of her bodily fluids (like nutrients) for the fetus.
    Giving up bodily fluids is a form of care and support, and you haven't explained why that form of care and support should be considered differently than any other form of care and support.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And likewise when she give birth, she is putting her physical self at risk (it's sometime fatal) and going back to your analogy, if the mother didn't save her child because she correctly figured that she would be putting her own life in jeopardy if she tried, she probably would not be legally punished.
    I didn't say the mother was at risk. Maybe she is standing on the curb, and her daughter steps into the street. Maybe the car is still 500 feet away and only going 30 mph. The basic idea is that parents have a moral (and legal) obligation to provide their children with care and support, including protection against mortal threats. Do you agree with that statement or not?
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  12. #10
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,105
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: pro-choice argument

    --Counter principle---
    This is a principle that exist and is obvious to any rational person.
    "Parental obligation"

    Parents are obligated to fulfill any need their children have, if they are able to do so.
    While some instances of not fulfilling this duty is tolerated by society, it is still a violation of parental duty and obligations.

    For example, the mother or father that pushes their child in front of a gunman so as to save their own life... is a coward and has failed in their duty. Even if society would refuse to punish with jail the person for doing so. Such a person would not be seen as expressing a human weakness, not a strength, and certainly not, as the OP pretends, as though the parent had no obligation at all.
    A parent who would deny a blood transfusion to the death of their child, is a bad parent and has failed in their duty.

    In many instances the state does not have the power to compel the fulfillment of certain duties. Never the less, the obligations still exist and is commonly recognized by every rational person (especially parents). The parent sitting by the bed of their sick child who wishes with all their might that they could take their child's place, is not simply emotional, they are experiencing the very real weight of the duty that is to be a parent. Any parent that does not feel the same way, is broken and is failing their duty.

    These ideas are very connected with love. Anyone who would argue that a parent has no obligation to love their children, is failing to grasp parenthood. Such a person is inherently selfish, and evil.

    The above is repeated in the post below in a form. I moved it here because this is really central to my objection. By rejecting this principle there is an fundamental misunderstanding about what it means to be a parent. The Op's approach is really treating the relationship as though it were two random people with no relation. This denies a fundamental truth, that should not be accepted.

    Can I argue the above? I think I could, but I am not willing. I can only say "Shame on you" if you do not immediately recognize the obvious truth of the above."

    Show me a single example of where you applauded a mother for starving her child, when she has breast milk flowing. Show me the parent you congratulated or even congratulated themselves for saving their own life, at the cost of one of their children. (don't point to abortion, because those people don't recognize the unborn as a life as the OP assumes). Honestly, the way the OP treats a parent child relationship is abhorrent and monstrous, it simply doesn't reflect reality.
    ----

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    How do you know that?
    Why don't you?
    Let me amend/retract some of it though. My argument is not really to point to criminality of an act.
    Rather to point to a generally recognized failure of duty. Sometimes that is to a criminal extent.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I think if the woman honestly had no access to food for her child and therefore was unable to feed him except for her own breast milk, she probably would not be legally punished for it.
    That is what your "principle" would dictate but that isn't how normal people would view it.
    Because every sane person in the world understands that breast milk is food for babies. Also, everyone knows that a mother who denies her child her own breast-milk in the absence of alternative is failing her duty and obligation. That is why literally no sane woman has ever let her child starve, while she is lactating. Certainly not on the principle of "I don't owe it to them".

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    In fact, I would predict that if this situation ever happened, she would not be punished under the principle that I am forwarding in my argument (that one can never be forced to give up part of their body even if it's to save another's life).
    This "principle" is your assertion, but it doesn't actually exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But until such a case actually happens and you are shown to be correct, this point of yours is not supported.
    Not really. This is not a controversial thing, you are simply forced to accept it due to your argument, not by some reflection of reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Since a mother can give a child up for adoption upon its birth, they are never obligated to physically carry the child.
    False. The mother is always obligated. Your just shifting WHO the mother is.
    Which only supports the fact that the obligation exists, and you can't simply refuse to accept it, you can only transfer it.
    You can't transfer what doesn't exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And the use of the body I am referring to is actually giving up part of one's physical body, not using their body to aid the child (such as using one's arms to pick up a child). When pregnant, the child is taking nutrients from the mother and therefore she is literally giving the child part of her body.
    Sweat is a part of a persons body. Work is to give your sweat.
    You have no limiting principle that can count breast milk, and not count sweat.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I am not appealing to giving the kidney. I am using the kidney as an example of the principle of giving up part of one's body. In pregnancy, the "giving up" is letting the fetus take nutrients from one's body.
    It is not a valid comparison, because you don't give a kidney in the same way you give nutrients or sweat.
    Work is giving your energy. So forced labor of any kind is a violation of your principle,and that happens so your principle doesn't actually exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And I have yet to see a valid rebuttal to my observation that we do not allow person A to take from person B's body, even if it's necessary to save person A's life.
    That is more a reflection of your state of mind then of the state of the argument.

    A nurse is REQUIRED to give her breath to a car accident victim if they need CPR.
    A father is required to give his sweat in support of his family. (work is directly connected to work).
    A husband and wife are required to give each other sex, or else they break their marital obligations and can be divorced and found at fault.
    Criminals are required to give their time by forcing their bodies into specific locations.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I am going to use the term "body autonomy" to refer to the principle of not having to give up part of one's body against one's will.
    That is a good name. However the term does not have logical limits that exclude the examples that violate it, see above and other 2 in last post.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Because you say so? I understand your argument but I have no reason to accept it unless I choose to just take your word for it. Since I don't take your word for it and you have provided no support that what you say it correct, this argument fails.
    No, because it is obvious that obligations exist that involve the bodies of the parents.
    Your definition is thus arbitrary, as though bodily fluid is special to other things involving the body.
    Your the one really forwarding something we are just supposed to accept.
    As you are the one making the argument it is your burden to prove that "body autonomy" exists.
    for my part, I am appealing to common culture and other events that violate your assumption.



    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But to make my reasoning for disagreeing clear (so I'm not just saying "nuh-uh"), the apparent action that the mother took is conceiving the child and therefore I surmise that you arguing that conceiving the child gives the mother a unique obligation that overrides that body autonomy principle that I am forwarding. But if that were true, then the obligation would exist after the child is born as well as before it's born. But a mother is not obligated to give up her kidney (or any other part/fluid) to her born child. She still has the right to bodily autonomy even if the person who needs her part/fluid is her own child. Whether the child is born or unborn makes no difference.
    I am pointing to where it does exist after, the problem is you are failing to accurately recognize it.
    For example my point is that obligations exist, and you are trying to draw an arbitrary line for body autonomy.

    So, I point out that a mother has the obligation to see that her child is fed. If she rejects an available avenue she is failing her duty.
    Just as a mother would be seen as failing her duty to refuse her breast-milk to her starving child, or bodily warmth to a freezing child.
    Just like a father who is an Olympic swimmer has an obligation to TRY and save his drowning child, even to the end of his own life.
    Basically, capability is seen as an obligation. If the parent is CAPABLE, they are obligated to provide it.

    So the form is Parent is capable of providing for child need X. Therefore Parent is obligated to fill that need.
    This is not limited by "bodily autonomy". So the extreme would be your own life. While it may be "understandable" that one would not give this when capable. It is still a failing of duty.
    As we move away from that, the further removed the stronger the condemnation for violating the obligation is. So giving blood to your child. The state may not be able to compel you, because it lacks that authority, never the less, any parent who would let their child die, when they are able to save their life by giving blood, is a bad parent and has failed their duty.

    Because, parents have an obligation to give even their life for their own children. Good parents do, Bad parents do not.
    That is why parents who are selfish in regards to their children are seen as failing them.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    The mother has absolutely no unique obligation to a born child due to just being the child's biological mother. It is true that IF the mother chooses to care for the child after it is born (as oppose to give it up for adoption), then she has taken on some legal responsibilities (although none obligate her to cede body autonomy to the child) that she can be punished for if she fails to observe on some level. But there really is no inherent legal responsibility for just being a biological mother to a child so the act of conception isn't particularly relevant to one's legal obligation. If a biological mother chooses to give up her child, she has no more obligation to that chid than you or I do.
    This appeal to adoption is really a red herring.
    Adoption is a socially acceptable way of fulfilling all a persons parental duties.
    If there were no duties to start with, then adoption is not necessary at all. One could simply place the child on top of a wall and let the birds eat it.
    Why not? You have not obligations to it, and certainly don't owe it any of your body. Like bodily warmth on a cold night.
    I'm not letting you reject parental obligations as though it is some alien term to society.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Well, your argument, as I read it, was about abortion in general so showing that your statement does not apply to some abortions shows that it doesn't apply to abortion in general.
    That doesn't make any sense.
    If 99% of abortions involve willful killing, then my point is simply limited to the 99, and you have successfully pointed out a 1% example that it doesn't apply to.
    You only limit the application, you don't negate the point.
    Also, you were not clear as to what you meant by abortion, and I literally didn't think about your example as abortion to begin with.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    This argument, as presented, is about abortion in general as it argues in abortion, death is the primary cause because the fetus is killed before evicted. But as I showed, that is not always true that the fetus is killed before eviction so it's likewise not uniformly true that death is the primary cause and therefore your argument does not apply to abortion in general.

    The death of the fetus is an effect of abortion, not the purpose of abortion. Likewise, a person dying because there were no kidneys available when needed is the effect of observing body autonomy, not the purpose of body autonomy.
    First, I feel that I added clarity in my posts, so limiting this to the "original statement" is an instance of you not really listening very well.

    CHALLENGE
    Define abortion, and explain what occurs in it's process, and we can consider my point a valid refutation to your argument as it applies other than that.
    don't shift it all on my and act like I'm being vague.

    https://www.webmd.com/women/abortion-procedures#1

    Two kinds listed, suction and D&E
    Both of these kill the unborn necessarily before it is evicted.

    Basically, my point stands on anything after 8weeks as a point of fact.
    To serve man.

  13. #11
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,359
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: pro-choice argument

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    --Counter principle---
    This is a principle that exist and is obvious to any rational person.
    "Parental obligation"

    Parents are obligated to fulfill any need their children have, if they are able to do so.
    And becoming a parent who has the obligation to protect a particular child is purely a matter of choice. At no point is the birth mother obligated to assume the role of parent for the child she conceived. She can give it up for adoption and abdicate all parental responsibililty.

    So while I agree with the concept of parent obligation, it is a voluntary obligation and therefor no woman is required to assume it.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    In many instances the state does not have the power to compel the fulfillment of certain duties. Never the less, the obligations still exist and is commonly recognized by every rational person (especially parents). The parent sitting by the bed of their sick child who wishes with all their might that they could take their child's place, is not simply emotional, they are experiencing the very real weight of the duty that is to be a parent. Any parent that does not feel the same way, is broken and is failing their duty.

    These ideas are very connected with love. Anyone who would argue that a parent has no obligation to love their children, is failing to grasp parenthood. Such a person is inherently selfish, and evil.
    I agree to all of that once the adult accepts the responsibility of parenthood, whether the child is biologically theirs or adopted.

    But again, since a woman is never obligation to accept such a responsibility, there is nothing here that overrides her right to bodily autonomy. And I certain would not consider her selfish and evil for giving up her kid for adoption, nor do I think you were saying that she is.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Show me a single example of where you applauded a mother for starving her child, when she has breast milk flowing. Show me the parent you congratulated or even congratulated themselves for saving their own life, at the cost of one of their children. (don't point to abortion, because those people don't recognize the unborn as a life as the OP assumes). Honestly, the way the OP treats a parent child relationship is abhorrent and monstrous, it simply doesn't reflect reality.
    At no point did I say or imply that if this event occurred, she did anything less than awful and your implication that I or my argument would approve is not based on reality.

    My argument in this case was strictly a legal argument and I was telling you what I think would likely happen. Implying that I would approve of her actions or saying that my arguments are monstrous in no way counters my argument.

    Likewise the rather heated tone of your response gives me concern that this debate may spin out of control into bad behavior that will scuttle the debate. So let's be careful and keep the tone civil and logical.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Why don't you?
    Let me amend/retract some of it though. My argument is not really to point to criminality of an act.
    Rather to point to a generally recognized failure of duty. Sometimes that is to a criminal extent.
    But the question is whether someone has a duty that overrides their right to bodily autonomy. I have yet to see an argument that supports that it does.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That is what your "principle" would dictate but that isn't how normal people would view it.
    Because every sane person in the world understands that breast milk is food for babies. Also, everyone knows that a mother who denies her child her own breast-milk in the absence of alternative is failing her duty and obligation. That is why literally no sane woman has ever let her child starve, while she is lactating. Certainly not on the principle of "I don't owe it to them".
    The principle is not "I don't owe it to them". The principle is "one is not required by law to violate their bodily autonomy".

    And letting her child starve is the issue, not denying the child breast milk. In our world, there are many ways to feed a child and if the mother let her child starve then she clearly did take the appropriate effort to go out and get the child formula if she wasn't going to breast feed.

    So the government does not require a mother to breast feed her child and therefore does not punish her for failing to do so since she can feed the child in other ways.

    And I'm sure you can device a scenario where the mother is locked away or trapped so that she would have no access to other food even if she tried but then in that situation, the situation she found herself in would be considered the primary cause of the baby's death and she would not be prosecuted for the child's death, even if she didn't breast feed it when she could have.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    This "principle" is your assertion, but it doesn't actually exist.
    If it doesn't exist, then the government can force people to give up parts of their bodies to save other people. But of course this doesn't happen because the principle does exist.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Not really. This is not a controversial thing, you are simply forced to accept it due to your argument, not by some reflection of reality.
    Yes, really. If you are going to argue that X can happen, you either need to show that it does happen or make an argument that overcomes by doubts on the issue.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    False. The mother is always obligated. Your just shifting WHO the mother is.
    Which only supports the fact that the obligation exists, and you can't simply refuse to accept it, you can only transfer it.
    You can't transfer what doesn't exist.
    The obligation does not exist until someone creates it and not before. And the creation of a parental obligation occurs when someone agrees to accept parental responsibility for a child.

    So the obligation is not transferred from the person who refuses to be a parent to the person who accepts the responsibilty. The obligation is created by the person who accepts the responsibility upon acceptance.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Sweat is a part of a persons body. Work is to give your sweat.
    You have no limiting principle that can count breast milk, and not count sweat.
    I certainly have no obligation to collect a bunch of my sweat and give it to anyone.

    Sweating while at work is not the same as handing over my perspiration to someone. Odds are I'm taking my sweat with me when I leave work.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It is not a valid comparison, because you don't give a kidney in the same way you give nutrients or sweat.
    Not in the exact same way but they all fall under giving parts of one's body which is what my principle is about.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Work is giving your energy. So forced labor of any kind is a violation of your principle,and that happens so your principle doesn't actually exist.
    And effort at one's work is not part of one's physical body so this would not be a violation of body autonomy.

    Although forced labor is a violation of another kind (I am referring to the rights of FREE people - I acknowledge that prisoners and such are not necessarily entitled to all of the rights that free people enjoy but I think forced labor is off-topic a bit).




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That is more a reflection of your state of mind then of the state of the argument.

    A nurse is REQUIRED to give her breath to a car accident victim if they need CPR.
    A father is required to give his sweat in support of his family. (work is directly connected to work).
    A husband and wife are required to give each other sex, or else they break their marital obligations and can be divorced and found at fault.
    Criminals are required to give their time by forcing their bodies into specific locations.
    1. A nurse is required by her job to do her job. There likely isn't any legal ramifications if she were to fail to do her duty]
    2. Not an example of giving up one's body autonomy
    3. Not a legal obligation though (this is a debate about legalizing abortion so arguments that don't support a legal argument for or against abortion is off topic)
    4. Again, not giving up body parts. Likewise those who are incarcerated are not entitled to full rights.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    No, because it is obvious that obligations exist that involve the bodies of the parents.
    Your definition is thus arbitrary, as though bodily fluid is special to other things involving the body.
    Your the one really forwarding something we are just supposed to accept.
    As you are the one making the argument it is your burden to prove that "body autonomy" exists.
    It exists because there are no circumstances where a free person is required to give up parts of his body under penalty of law.

    This is why if a person needs a kidney or will die, the government cannot force another person to provide one in order to save his life.

    Do you seriously doubt this?

    If not, then what do you think is the principle that prevent forcing one to donate a kidney in order to save a life? I seriously assumed that one cannot be forced to give up parts of their body is a pretty noncontroversial notion.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    for my part, I am appealing to common culture and other events that violate your assumption.
    Okay. But this is primarily a legal argument so appeals to popularity (common culture) probably aren't going to be too useful.





    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I am pointing to where it does exist after, the problem is you are failing to accurately recognize it.
    For example my point is that obligations exist, and you are trying to draw an arbitrary line for body autonomy.

    So, I point out that a mother has the obligation to see that her child is fed. If she rejects an available avenue she is failing her duty.
    Just as a mother would be seen as failing her duty to refuse her breast-milk to her starving child, or bodily warmth to a freezing child.
    Just like a father who is an Olympic swimmer has an obligation to TRY and save his drowning child, even to the end of his own life.
    Basically, capability is seen as an obligation. If the parent is CAPABLE, they are obligated to provide it.
    I don't challenge the notion of parental obligation but then it doesn't apply to someone who doesn't accept the obligation so it's kind of an irrelevant point in regards to a woman who has no intention of being a parent.

    Let's try to use "Mother" for "birth mother" and "parent" for "person who raises the child"


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So the form is Parent is capable of providing for child need X. Therefore Parent is obligated to fill that need.
    This is not limited by "bodily autonomy". So the extreme would be your own life. While it may be "understandable" that one would not give this when capable. It is still a failing of duty.
    As we move away from that, the further removed the stronger the condemnation for violating the obligation is. So giving blood to your child. The state may not be able to compel you, because it lacks that authority, never the less, any parent who would let their child die, when they are able to save their life by giving blood, is a bad parent and has failed their duty.

    Because, parents have an obligation to give even their life for their own children. Good parents do, Bad parents do not.
    That is why parents who are selfish in regards to their children are seen as failing them.
    I don't disagree with any of this but it in no way rebuts my legal argument.

    You have conceded that the parent is not obligated to give blood and therefore is no legally obligated to violate his/her body autonomy even when morally, the parent should obviously give blood.

    The OPs argument is a legal argument.

    And pointing out that it gives parents the ability to not give blood when they should to help their child does not rebut the OP's position at all. Parents do have the right to not give blood because the law respects their body autonomy. Whether this allows them to make a selfish choice is entirely beside the point of whether the legal principle exists.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    This appeal to adoption is really a red herring.
    Adoption is a socially acceptable way of fulfilling all a persons parental duties.
    If there were no duties to start with, then adoption is not necessary at all. One could simply place the child on top of a wall and let the birds eat it.
    Why not? You have not obligations to it, and certainly don't owe it any of your body. Like bodily warmth on a cold night.
    I'm not letting you reject parental obligations as though it is some alien term to society.
    I don't reject the concept of parent obligation. But one does not have the obligation just because they conceived the child. The person who CHOOSES to raise the child has the parent obligation.

    And the obligations that prevent one from putting the child on a wall is not necessarily a parental obligation. If you found an abandoned baby that wasn't yours, you would certainly feel an obligation to protect and take it somewhere where is will be properly taken care of. But that would not be a parent obligation because you aren't the parent. it's a different kind of obligation.

    So to be clear, the ONLY person who has a parent obligation is the one who CHOOSES to be the child's parent (or chooses to take on a role where they have a legal obligation to take care of the child like a reluctant step-parent).



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That doesn't make any sense.
    If 99% of abortions involve willful killing, then my point is simply limited to the 99, and you have successfully pointed out a 1% example that it doesn't apply to.
    You only limit the application, you don't negate the point.
    Also, you were not clear as to what you meant by abortion, and I literally didn't think about your example as abortion to begin with.
    Well, the morning after pill is a bit of gray area.

    And while I can make the argument that if something is intrinsic to something else, then it does need to happen 100% of the time, I'm going to drop this argument (for now at least). What's below is more on-point.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    CHALLENGE
    Define abortion, and explain what occurs in it's process, and we can consider my point a valid refutation to your argument as it applies other than that.
    don't shift it all on my and act like I'm being vague.

    If you want to argue that the process of abortion

    https://www.webmd.com/women/abortion-procedures#1

    Two kinds listed, suction and D&E
    Both of these kill the unborn necessarily before it is evicted.
    First off, challenges are to get one to support one's argument, not to get them to make some kind of argument that will defeat your argument. If you can't say "support or retract", then it's not a proper challenge. So I choose to not address your challenge.

    And while I won't hit the challenge button, I do ask that you support that both suction and D&E kill the unborn before its evacuated. I did check the link you provided and I didn't see anything that says the unborn is killed prior to evacuation. In fact, logically it would seem that suction does not kill the fetus before it's removed, like if I sucked a mouse into a vacuum cleaner (it will likely survive being sucked into the cleaner and die afterwards).

    So I reject your statement that 99%, or even a significant number of, abortions require killing the fetus before eviction and therefore reject any argument that includes that as a premise until this position is supported.

    ---------- Post added at 01:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:41 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Then your argument ignores the basis for how people and society typically determine right and wrong when it comes to the taking of human life. In other situations, killing an innocent life is wrong, while letting it die may be considered differently, depending on the specifics. You're making a Special Pleading by saying what normally would apply does not in the case of a pregnant mother. And the argument in support of that pleading (below) doesn't work.
    I disagree.

    When the mother makes the decision to terminate the pregnancy and the pregnancy is terminated, the fetus will die. If it's removed from the womb still alive, then it does qualify as "letting him die" much in same way as removing someone fro life support is "letting him die". If on the other hand, it is directly killed in the womb, the end results are essentially the same as if it were removed alive - the fetus dies. So in this situation, there is no relevant difference between "killing" and "letting him die". Yes, there is a difference but just not a particularly relevant one.

    Minute difference between two things is not special pleading.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Giving up bodily fluids is a form of care and support, and you haven't explained why that form of care and support should be considered differently than any other form of care and support.
    True. As far as I know, my argument does not address "care and support" at all. So okay, I didn't explain the difference. So what?



    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    I didn't say the mother was at risk. Maybe she is standing on the curb, and her daughter steps into the street. Maybe the car is still 500 feet away and only going 30 mph. The basic idea is that parents have a moral (and legal) obligation to provide their children with care and support, including protection against mortal threats. Do you agree with that statement or not?
    I agree. But I don't see what this has to do with the issue of giving up body parts/fluids. Grabbing a child (which I would think everyone has an obligation to do, not just parents) from the street does not qualify as giving up parts/fluids.
    Last edited by mican333; June 14th, 2019 at 06:22 AM.

  14. #12
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,391
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: pro-choice argument

    I think the supreme court wrestled with this and came to the right conclusion.

    When the child is of viable age then the mother's body autonomy only outweigh the state's interest in preserving the child's life if the mother is in physical danger.

    Body autonomy is not some inviolate right. It's a good principle, but it should be subject to reasonable limitations when other peoples lives are on the line.

    When the child is not of a viable age, then I think the state's interest in protecting its life is significantly diminished and the privacy of body autonomy can indeed outweigh the value we place on that life as a society.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  15. #13
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,607
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: pro-choice argument

    Mican, if you think there is only a "minute difference" between killing and letting die, and don't think that care and support of a child by parent is relevant, then it is impossible to move forward with you in this debate.

    I think your op and arguments will only be viewed as compelling by those who are already pro-choice. I doubt very much that any one on the other side will ever be persuaded by your approach.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  16. #14
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,359
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: pro-choice argument

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Mican, if you think there is only a "minute difference" between killing and letting die, and don't think that care and support of a child by parent is relevant, then it is impossible to move forward with you in this debate.
    I did not argue that there is always a minute difference but in some situations and contexts, the difference in minute. I mean what difference does it make to the fetus whether it was directly killed or removed and let die? To the fetus, there is no difference at all and therefore my statement that it's "minute" is pretty accurate. And the relevance of parental care and support is dependent on the argument under discussion. i certainly never made a blanket statement regarding parental support.

    But this is besides the point. What I happen to think is irrelevant to the content of my argument.

    If my argument itself has a flaw, then either point out the flaw or let my argument stand. And refusing to debate further qualifies as letting the argument stand. I'm not particularly interested in your reasoning for not debating (especially since your reasoning seems pretty spurious).

    So do you have a rebuttal? If so, let's hear it. If not, then we are done here.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    I think your op and arguments will only be viewed as compelling by those who are already pro-choice. I doubt very much that any one on the other side will ever be persuaded by your approach.
    Well, my argument, if accurate, points out an inconsistency in the pro-life position (that they hold the born and unborn to different standard when their position is suppose to be that they are essentially the same)..

    And if a pro-lifer hears my argument, cannot find a logical flaw in it, but doesn't change his mind about his position, then it's an issue of cognitive dissonance. And CD is very common amongst people - I'm sure everyone, even me, engages in it to some extent.

    But then why pro-lifers won't change their minds is not really relevant to whether my argument is valid or not.

    So okay, it probably won't change any minds. So what?

    If you are arguing that my argument won't change minds because the argument is flawed, then point out the flaw in the argument itself.




    ---------- Post added at 06:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:47 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I think the supreme court wrestled with this and came to the right conclusion.

    When the child is of viable age then the mother's body autonomy only outweigh the state's interest in preserving the child's life if the mother is in physical danger.
    But doesn't being viable mean that the child no longer needs the Mother's body in order to stay alive?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Body autonomy is not some inviolate right. It's a good principle, but it should be subject to reasonable limitations when other peoples lives are on the line.
    So then we SHOULD be allowed to take a kidney from someone without their consent if it's the only way to save the life of someone else? I mean that's as clear-cut a case of someone else' life on the line that I can think of (which is why I use it as the example).

    I really can't think of an example where one's body autonomy is legally violated by the state unless the person is placed under the power of the state first (like they are incarcerated or involuntarily committed)
    Last edited by mican333; June 15th, 2019 at 04:25 PM.

  17. #15
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,607
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: pro-choice argument

    Every human culture recognizes that there are hugely significant differences between murder, manslaughter, self-defense and allowing someone to die (no, I'm not going to support that). You, Mican, do not, and the op stands only in the absence of that a belief. I'm not going to try to beat the belief into you. If you think that means your argument stands "unchallenged", well, you go ahead and believe that.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  18. #16
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,391
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: pro-choice argument

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But doesn't being viable mean that the child no longer needs the Mother's body in order to stay alive?
    Partly, it means you can introduce a surrogate of some kind and expect that might succeed.

    So then we SHOULD be allowed to take a kidney from someone without their consent if it's the only way to save the life of someone else? I mean that's as clear-cut a case of someone else' life on the line that I can think of (which is why I use it as the example).
    I think we can say that taking someone's kidney unless they are dead already, represents real bodily harm to someone. Being pregnant is generally understood to be an essential part of the human species and is generally considered a positive event in life.

    I really can't think of an example where one's body autonomy is legally violated by the state unless the person is placed under the power of the state first (like they are incarcerated or involuntarily committed)
    Vaccination.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  19. #17
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,359
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: pro-choice argument

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Every human culture recognizes that there are hugely significant differences between murder, manslaughter, self-defense and allowing someone to die (no, I'm not going to support that).
    If you won't support it, then your argument fails for lack of support.

    And besides that, your argument is wrong. That's not to say that sometimes there is a huge difference between one of things and the other but sometimes the difference is minute. Sometimes the difference between murder and manslaughter is so minute that prosecutors could justify charging a defendant with either of them (which would not be the case if you were at all correct that the difference between murder and manslaughter is "hugely significant"). So as a blanket statement, your argument is incorrect. So I doubt you could support it if you tried. So yeah, your argument fails beyond the fact that you won't support it.

    And getting back to my specific argument, what is the "huge difference" between killing the fetus inside the womb and taking the fetus out and letting it die (which essentially is killing it just like turning off someone's life support would qualify as killing him)?

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    You, Mican, do not, and the op stands only in the absence of that a belief. I'm not going to try to beat the belief into you. If you think that means your argument stands "unchallenged", well, you go ahead and believe that.
    I don't have to believe it on faith or anything any more than I have to believe that a chess opponent has forfeited the game by refusing to make another move.

    One can clearly see, without any subjectivity, that you have not supported your argument. You've even said that you refuse to.

    So while one can walk away from the chessboard while it's still their move and declare themselves the winner, anyone who knows how to play chess and observed what happened will know that the declaration of winning is false.

    So if you want to walk away from the debate without rebutting my argument and believe that your non-rebuttal successfully defeated my argument, you go ahead and believe that.

    Or if you want to continue the debate with an actual argument instead of further explanation about why you won't debate, feel free. That's what I would prefer.




    ---------- Post added at 09:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:35 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I think we can say that taking someone's kidney unless they are dead already, represents real bodily harm to someone. Being pregnant is generally understood to be an essential part of the human species and is generally considered a positive event in life.
    But pregnancy does risk great bodily harm - even death. I wouldn't be surprised if the mortality rate for giving birth is higher than the mortality rate of donating a kidney.



    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Vaccination.
    In way that would be a violation (although I don't believe that people would be arrested for refusing to vaccinate so it's kind of a grey area if it's an imposition).

    But I am referring to not being forced to give up a part of one's body. It's essentially a privacy issue (being secure in one's self). Vaccination isn't really the same as it doesn't intrude on one's privacy (like deals with what's in their body or anything personal).
    Last edited by mican333; June 16th, 2019 at 08:33 AM.

  20. #18
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,374
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: pro-choice argument

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I came across a pretty good argument for the pro-choice position that I will forward.

    The primary conflict in the abortion debate is the life of the fetus vs. the right of the mother to remove the fetus from the womb before it's viable which results in the fetus' death.

    And the pro-life side would argue that the fetus should be treated like a born person and therefore its life should override the woman's right to not be forced to keep the fetus in her womb until it is viable.

    But it seems that even if we are to treat the fetus as a legal equal to a born person, that still would not give it the right to use the woman's body to keep itself alive. Because a born person doesn't have the right to another person's body even to keep himself or herself alive.

    As an example, if someone needs a kidney transplant to survive but there are no available kidneys, the law would let this person die before it would force another human to give up a kidney to save a life. Or if a person needs bone marrow, we don't force someone to give up bone marrow even if it's necessary to save a life.

    So even if we do agree that a fetus has the same rights as a born person, one of those rights does not appear to include being able to use another's body against their will to keep oneself alive.
    I think this argument tries to smuggle in a premise which is not neccesarily true. Most Americans believe in the right to have an abortion. There are outliers, extremes on both sides. There are those who want legal abortions to the point of actual conception (or even slightly after) and there are those who want all abortions illegal. Yet, those two groups are minorities. Most people believe in abortion but disagree as to what limits should be set. I think, most people believe that once the fetus is viable, abortion enters a gray area and tend towards it being immoral and support laws that make such abortions illegal. The argument you are presenting is really just reiterating the view most Americans already have and it appears to be relevant only because the extreme of the pro-abortion side has indicated that any desire or belief that abortion should be limited is supporting the anti-abortion side. I think this argument, as it is presented, only enhances this confusion.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. God: KCA and choice
    By Allocutus in forum Religion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: August 21st, 2014, 01:34 PM
  2. Replies: 322
    Last Post: April 4th, 2012, 11:45 AM
  3. Pro Choice For Whom?
    By Xanadu Moo in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 112
    Last Post: June 4th, 2007, 07:33 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •