djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Jul 17, 2023 23:24:26 GMT
Do you believe that bodily autonomy is an absolute right?
If your answer is yes then do you believe a woman should be legally allowed to drink and/or do drugs during pregnancy to purposely inflict a disability on the unborn child?
|
|
|
Post by marianne48 on Jul 18, 2023 0:49:43 GMT
Do you believe that bodily autonomy is an absolute right? If your answer is yes then do you believe a woman should be legally allowed to drink and/or do drugs during pregnancy to purposely inflict a disability on the unborn child? No, because that would cause harm to the child after it's born, just as physical/sexual abuse of a living child is unconscionable. Aborting a fetus before it's viable is not the same thing. And if a woman is a heavy drinker or drug addict and becomes pregnant, all the more reason for her to have an abortion rather than bring an affected fetus to term.
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jul 18, 2023 7:26:04 GMT
Do you believe that bodily autonomy is an absolute right? If your answer is yes then do you believe a woman should be legally allowed to drink and/or do drugs during pregnancy to purposely inflict a disability on the unborn child? No, because that would cause harm to the child after it's born, just as physical/sexual abuse of a living child is unconscionable. Aborting a fetus before it's viable is not the same thing. And if a woman is a heavy drinker or drug addict and becomes pregnant, all the more reason for her to have an abortion rather than bring an affected fetus to term.
If pro-choicers care so much about killing babies BEFORE they suffer, how come they don't try to pass laws to legalize killing kids who ARE suffering? We've heard more than once ALL the kids in foster care would be better off dead, and if you asked the kids themselves, they would agree with it...strangely enough the people who say this don't make a habit of actually asking foster kids 'do you think you'd rather be dead?', just like they're very quick to say kids with x, y or z syndromes, disabilities, handicaps, etc., would be better off dead, none of which have the balls to go to any said person's face and TELL them they'd be better off dead. Why not?
And they sure wouldn't want to tell a rape baby they should've been killed before they were born, because some of them would be looking into a mirror, or talking to their mother, their grandmother, their sister, brother, spouse, best friend, etc.
And on the subject of rape, I don't understand why it's okay to kill the baby that was MAYBE conceived in rape, but the same people don't demand laws that give women the right to kill their rapists anytime anywhere because that'll be healing for them and give them closure. One person summed it up as 'oh well she might be MISTAKEN', ergo the WRONG man would be killed, oh but even if the guy DIDN'T rape her, he TOTALLY put that rape baby in her so it has to die instead? Yeah, doesn't compute, does it?
|
|
|
Post by marianne48 on Jul 18, 2023 9:50:31 GMT
Yikes.
No, "we've" not heard this.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 18, 2023 11:32:36 GMT
Do you believe that bodily autonomy is an absolute right? If your answer is yes then do you believe a woman should be legally allowed to drink and/or do drugs during pregnancy to purposely inflict a disability on the unborn child? This is actually really easy for anyone who has a moral framework based on rationalism. But your question is so LOADED that it requires a nuanced response, so here goes. In addition to everything marianne48 said, I think bodily autonomy is an absolute right, up until the point at which you begin to usurp the rights of another person. The freedom to swing your arm as hard as you want ends where someone else’s face begins. Consequently, someone choosing to act in such a way as to “purposefully” harm another person is immoral. Having said that, a fetus is not a person and someone who is pregnant reserves the right to NOT be pregnant against their will. Your question is an absurdity because you’re purposely creating an unrealistic scenario, not representative of what most pregnant people would ever deal with in reality, in order to make some larger statement about the morality of bodily autonomy in general. You’re also conflating morality with legality. If someone chooses to remain pregnant and ultimately have a child, then they also assume a moral responsibility to behave in such a way as to be a steward of the fetus they’ve agree to bring into the world. That means NOT behaving in the way implied by your example. As to what should be “legal”, that’s a different question. It’s already illegal to “do drugs” (in most cases) whether you’re pregnant or not, so adding the pregnancy aspect is moot. And while it’s legal to drink while pregnant, I personally believe that it should not be. In the same way that it’s illegal to drink before a certain age in most countries, and illegal to drink and drive, it should also be illegal to drink while pregnant. That’s not a bodily autonomy issue, it’s a health and safety concern.
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jul 18, 2023 15:36:25 GMT
Do you believe that bodily autonomy is an absolute right? If your answer is yes then do you believe a woman should be legally allowed to drink and/or do drugs during pregnancy to purposely inflict a disability on the unborn child? This is actually really easy for anyone who has a moral framework based on rationalism. But your question is so LOADED that it requires a nuanced response, so here goes. In addition to everything marianne48 said, I think bodily autonomy is an absolute right, up until the point at which you begin to usurp the rights of another person. The freedom to swing your arm as hard as you want ends where someone else’s face begins. Consequently, someone choosing to act in such a way as to “purposefully” harm another person is immoral. Having said that, a fetus is not a person and someone who is pregnant reserves the right to NOT be pregnant against their will. Your question is an absurdity because you’re purposely creating an unrealistic scenario, not representative of what most pregnant people would ever deal with in reality, in order to make some larger statement about the morality of bodily autonomy in general. You’re also conflating morality with legality. If someone chooses to remain pregnant and ultimately have a child, then they also assume a moral responsibility to behave in such a way as to be a steward of the fetus they’ve agree to bring into the world. That means NOT behaving in the way implied by your example. As to what should be “legal”, that’s a different question. It’s already illegal to “do drugs” (in most cases) whether you’re pregnant or not, so adding the pregnancy aspect is moot. And while it’s legal to drink while pregnant, I personally believe that it should not be. In the same way that it’s illegal to drink before a certain age in most countries, and illegal to drink and drive, it should also be illegal to drink while pregnant. That’s not a bodily autonomy issue, it’s a health and safety concern.
Then explain why killing a pregnant woman results in a DOUBLE homicide charge. You don't get that for killing a person carrying a potted plant.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 18, 2023 18:54:07 GMT
This is actually really easy for anyone who has a moral framework based on rationalism. But your question is so LOADED that it requires a nuanced response, so here goes. In addition to everything marianne48 said, I think bodily autonomy is an absolute right, up until the point at which you begin to usurp the rights of another person. The freedom to swing your arm as hard as you want ends where someone else’s face begins. Consequently, someone choosing to act in such a way as to “purposefully” harm another person is immoral. Having said that, a fetus is not a person and someone who is pregnant reserves the right to NOT be pregnant against their will. Your question is an absurdity because you’re purposely creating an unrealistic scenario, not representative of what most pregnant people would ever deal with in reality, in order to make some larger statement about the morality of bodily autonomy in general. You’re also conflating morality with legality. If someone chooses to remain pregnant and ultimately have a child, then they also assume a moral responsibility to behave in such a way as to be a steward of the fetus they’ve agree to bring into the world. That means NOT behaving in the way implied by your example. As to what should be “legal”, that’s a different question. It’s already illegal to “do drugs” (in most cases) whether you’re pregnant or not, so adding the pregnancy aspect is moot. And while it’s legal to drink while pregnant, I personally believe that it should not be. In the same way that it’s illegal to drink before a certain age in most countries, and illegal to drink and drive, it should also be illegal to drink while pregnant. That’s not a bodily autonomy issue, it’s a health and safety concern.
Then explain why killing a pregnant woman results in a DOUBLE homicide charge. You don't get that for killing a person carrying a potted plant.
Because as explained to you before, illegal killing is always murder or manslaughter, legal killing (where abortion is allowed for instance, state executions etc) is not. Please try and remember the distinction. It will save you embarrassing yourself all over..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2023 22:09:55 GMT
I haven't walked a mile in their shoes.
I'm a Christian. I'm not to judge others.
Who am I, a sinner, to call out the sins of others.
You must be the purest of the pure, or arrogant enough to put yourself above the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ to do so.
|
|
jackbrock
Sophomore
@jackbrock
Posts: 119
Likes: 20
|
Post by jackbrock on Jul 18, 2023 23:53:38 GMT
This is actually really easy for anyone who has a moral framework based on rationalism. But your question is so LOADED that it requires a nuanced response, so here goes. In addition to everything marianne48 said, I think bodily autonomy is an absolute right, up until the point at which you begin to usurp the rights of another person. The freedom to swing your arm as hard as you want ends where someone else’s face begins. Consequently, someone choosing to act in such a way as to “purposefully” harm another person is immoral. Having said that, a fetus is not a person and someone who is pregnant reserves the right to NOT be pregnant against their will. Your question is an absurdity because you’re purposely creating an unrealistic scenario, not representative of what most pregnant people would ever deal with in reality, in order to make some larger statement about the morality of bodily autonomy in general. You’re also conflating morality with legality. If someone chooses to remain pregnant and ultimately have a child, then they also assume a moral responsibility to behave in such a way as to be a steward of the fetus they’ve agree to bring into the world. That means NOT behaving in the way implied by your example. As to what should be “legal”, that’s a different question. It’s already illegal to “do drugs” (in most cases) whether you’re pregnant or not, so adding the pregnancy aspect is moot. And while it’s legal to drink while pregnant, I personally believe that it should not be. In the same way that it’s illegal to drink before a certain age in most countries, and illegal to drink and drive, it should also be illegal to drink while pregnant. That’s not a bodily autonomy issue, it’s a health and safety concern.
Then explain why killing a pregnant woman results in a DOUBLE homicide charge. You don't get that for killing a person carrying a potted plant.
I'm calling BS on this. Killing a pregnant woman may be morally repugnant, but it isn't a double homicide.
|
|
jackbrock
Sophomore
@jackbrock
Posts: 119
Likes: 20
|
Post by jackbrock on Jul 19, 2023 0:01:14 GMT
Do you believe that bodily autonomy is an absolute right? If your answer is yes then do you believe a woman should be legally allowed to drink and/or do drugs during pregnancy to purposely inflict a disability on the unborn child? Do you believe that bodily autonomy is an absolute right? - Yes, I don't believe anyone should be able to violate any other person's body without consent. What about you? If you don't believe it, can I visit you and violate you, just for my own fun and amusement? I don't believe there are any laws governing drinking/doing drugs while pregnant. Child services may very well remove the infant from the mother after it's born.
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jul 19, 2023 1:16:30 GMT
Do you believe that bodily autonomy is an absolute right? If your answer is yes then do you believe a woman should be legally allowed to drink and/or do drugs during pregnancy to purposely inflict a disability on the unborn child? Do you believe that bodily autonomy is an absolute right? - Yes, I don't believe anyone should be able to violate any other person's body without consent. What about you? If you don't believe it, can I visit you and violate you, just for my own fun and amusement? I don't believe there are any laws governing drinking/doing drugs while pregnant. Child services may very well remove the infant from the mother after it's born.
If the draft comes back, are men going to be able to say 'my body, my choice, I ain't going'? Sure, they can try, they'll be in JAIL for it because their bodies are considered PROPERTY.
|
|
jackbrock
Sophomore
@jackbrock
Posts: 119
Likes: 20
|
Post by jackbrock on Jul 19, 2023 1:22:39 GMT
Do you believe that bodily autonomy is an absolute right? - Yes, I don't believe anyone should be able to violate any other person's body without consent. What about you? If you don't believe it, can I visit you and violate you, just for my own fun and amusement? I don't believe there are any laws governing drinking/doing drugs while pregnant. Child services may very well remove the infant from the mother after it's born.
If the draft comes back, are men going to be able to say 'my body, my choice, I ain't going'? Sure, they can try, they'll be in JAIL for it because their bodies are considered PROPERTY.
Your response is irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jul 19, 2023 3:01:48 GMT
If the draft comes back, are men going to be able to say 'my body, my choice, I ain't going'? Sure, they can try, they'll be in JAIL for it because their bodies are considered PROPERTY.
Your response is irrelevant.
No it's not. Where was the male bodily autonomy during Vietnam, WWII, Korea, WWI? If they're not entitled to it, what makes women so special?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 19, 2023 3:20:49 GMT
Then explain why killing a pregnant woman results in a DOUBLE homicide charge. You don't get that for killing a person carrying a potted plant.
I'm calling BS on this. Killing a pregnant woman may be morally repugnant, but it isn't a double homicide. Scott Peterson disagrees.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 19, 2023 11:40:37 GMT
Your response is irrelevant.
No it's not. Where was the male bodily autonomy during Vietnam, WWII, Korea, WWI? If they're not entitled to it, what makes women so special?
Yes quite right, and how apt your comparison. Where is the male bodily autonomy when being told to go to school, observe the speed limit when driving or being obliged to return library books on time? Clearly something is wrong here! If you own yourself, then you have the freedom to make these, er, personal intimate decisions.
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jul 19, 2023 13:03:49 GMT
No it's not. Where was the male bodily autonomy during Vietnam, WWII, Korea, WWI? If they're not entitled to it, what makes women so special?
Yes quite right, and how apt your comparison. Where is the male bodily autonomy when being told to go to school, observe the speed limit when driving or being obliged to return library books on time? Clearly something is wrong here! If you own yourself, then you have the freedom to make these, er, personal intimate decisions.
If you own yourself you should have the freedom to NOT be charged with damaging government/military PROPERTY if you injure yourself.
Now, given we're constantly questioning whether women should also be drafted if it's ever reinstated, good luck saying 'my body my choice' then.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 19, 2023 13:16:31 GMT
Yes quite right, and how apt your comparison. Where is the male bodily autonomy when being told to go to school, observe the speed limit when driving or being obliged to return library books on time? Clearly something is wrong here! If you own yourself, then you have the freedom to make these, er, personal intimate decisions.
If you own yourself you should have the freedom to NOT be charged with damaging government/military PROPERTY if you injure yourself.
Now, given we're constantly questioning whether women should also be drafted if it's ever reinstated, good luck saying 'my body my choice' then.
Your peculiarly attenuated and somewhat comical forced logic (which going by recent messages appears to be all you have left) regarding what was always about the personal and intimate is very educational. You didn't comment on the scandal of returning of library books, observing the speed limit and obligatory education in the light of 'bodily autonomy' I notice. And even if we take your non-sequiturs seriously, then it may still be observed that two wrongs don't make a right. More relevant though, at least in the UK, is the government's just-issued apology to LBTQ ex service veterans after a recent damning report which found that: Many faced invasive medical examinations and intrusive police investigations over their sexuality In some cases, as recently as 1996, they were sent to prison Many still have a criminal record to this day Some veterans also faced a complete loss of income as they were dismissed from the military Others were deemed ineligible to claim their pension. Based on your usual sarcastic exaggerations, I look forward to you posting implicitly condemning LBTQ rights too.
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jul 19, 2023 15:54:09 GMT
If you own yourself you should have the freedom to NOT be charged with damaging government/military PROPERTY if you injure yourself.
Now, given we're constantly questioning whether women should also be drafted if it's ever reinstated, good luck saying 'my body my choice' then.
Your peculiarly attenuated and somewhat comical forced logic (which going by recent messages appears to be all you have left) regarding what was always about the personal and intimate is very educational. You didn't comment on the scandal of returning of library books, observing the speed limit and obligatory education in the light of 'bodily autonomy' I notice.
WHAT 'scandal of returning library books, observing the speed limit and obligatory education'?
I suppose now you're going to say it's asking too much women be capable of doing those things as well?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 19, 2023 16:34:03 GMT
Your peculiarly attenuated and somewhat comical forced logic (which going by recent messages appears to be all you have left) regarding what was always about the personal and intimate is very educational. You didn't comment on the scandal of returning of library books, observing the speed limit and obligatory education in the light of 'bodily autonomy' I notice. WHAT 'scandal of returning library books, observing the speed limit and obligatory education'? I suppose now you're going to say it's asking too much women be capable of doing those things as well?
Please pay attention. I asked earlier, after reading your logic re: Vietnam, WWII, Korea, World Wars etc, where, too, is the male bodily autonomy when being told to go to school, observe the speed limit when driving or being obliged to return library books on time? Clearly something is wrong here. If there is no male bodily autonomy here, what makes women so special? After all this is more of your watertight argument against abortion, is it not? Debating with some proportion and sense on religious message boards. As it happens, no I don't think it is asking too much that women be capable of doing those things as well, if that helps?
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jul 19, 2023 17:01:43 GMT
WHAT 'scandal of returning library books, observing the speed limit and obligatory education'? I suppose now you're going to say it's asking too much women be capable of doing those things as well?
Please pay attention. I asked earlier, after reading your logic re: Vietnam, WWII, Korea, World Wars etc, where, too, is the male bodily autonomy when being told to go to school, observe the speed limit when driving or being obliged to return library books on time? Clearly something is wrong here. If there is no male bodily autonomy here, what makes women so special? After all this is more of your watertight argument against abortion, is it not? Debating with some proportion and sense on religious message boards. As it happens, no I don't think it is asking too much that women be capable of doing those things as well, if that helps?
But it's asking too much they pay for their own birth control, bring their own condoms, or abstain from unprotected sex with men who are just going to be a drunken one night stand?
|
|