|
Post by goz on Mar 7, 2021 1:44:30 GMT
Yes, this is an abortion rights thread started by a feminist.
It is a question worth asking however.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Mar 7, 2021 2:47:32 GMT
I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but if you mean that nobody has the right to any person's body besides themselves (including a fetus) then I agree.
This isn't difficult.
There are more nuances to the abortion thing on a moral level, but legally it should be permissible.
I want to stress that this is not always a man vs. woman argument, as there are many females who are not pro-choice.
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Mar 7, 2021 3:11:07 GMT
Stupid question
A woman`s body belongs to the woman.
Stop asking stupid questions.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 7, 2021 5:19:08 GMT
Stupid question A woman`s body belongs to the woman. Stop asking stupid questions. I wouldn't have to aask stupid questions if the answers were non-controversial and harmful to victims of harmfull behaviour by others, or restrictive legislation for things that should not even be the subject of legislation.
|
|
gw
Junior Member
@gw
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 556
|
Post by gw on Mar 7, 2021 7:30:06 GMT
In the overwhelming majority of situations the answer is of course yes. But if there were only two people alive, a man and a woman both capable of breeding, it goes without saying that the woman would be obligated to continue the species. But that's not just true of the woman but the man as well. If the woman were a lesbian and the man were gay the situation would call for both to go against their sexual orientations for the good of the species. Situations like that may come up for certain bloodlines but as far as I know it's more commonly accepted than not with reservation that individual bloodlines die out rather than force outsiders to continue them or have those who don't want to continue their bloodline to do so against their will. I don't have many specific examples to contribute, however, only imagined situations so I'm probably on the wrong side of the Dunning Krueger effect and won't say much more.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2021 7:32:59 GMT
In the overwhelming majority of situations the answer is of course yes. But if there were only two people alive, a man and a woman both capable of breeding, it goes without saying that the woman would be obligated to continue the species. But that's not just true of the woman but the man as well. Nobody has an obligation to continue the species.
|
|
gw
Junior Member
@gw
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 556
|
Post by gw on Mar 7, 2021 7:44:04 GMT
In the overwhelming majority of situations the answer is of course yes. But if there were only two people alive, a man and a woman both capable of breeding, it goes without saying that the woman would be obligated to continue the species. But that's not just true of the woman but the man as well. Nobody has an obligation to continue the species. Of all the things I thought people would disagree with, I didn't think it would be that one. I think that there are good reasons for continuing the species. After all, humans are the only form of life on Earth that has the potential to bring life to other places once the Earth can no longer support it. If the last humans were to die off we don't know if another species would evolve intelligence and civilization in time before the sun becomes too bright to support life on Earth. For that reason alone I think human beings should stick around. I'm sure that there are other reasons out there, but that's the one that pops into my head.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2021 7:51:21 GMT
Nobody has an obligation to continue the species. Of all the things I thought people would disagree with, I didn't think it would be that one. I think that there are good reasons for continuing the species. After all, humans are the only form of life on Earth that has the potential to bring life to other places once the Earth can no longer support it. If the last humans were to die off we don't know if another species would evolve intelligence and civilization in time before the sun becomes too bright to support life on Earth. For that reason alone I think human beings should stick around. I'm sure that there are other reasons out there, but that's the one that pops into my head. We should be banned from taking human life to any other place in the universe. We can't even look after the planet we live on. Let's not inflict the plague of humanity on any other planets.
|
|
gw
Junior Member
@gw
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 556
|
Post by gw on Mar 7, 2021 8:10:49 GMT
Of all the things I thought people would disagree with, I didn't think it would be that one. I think that there are good reasons for continuing the species. After all, humans are the only form of life on Earth that has the potential to bring life to other places once the Earth can no longer support it. If the last humans were to die off we don't know if another species would evolve intelligence and civilization in time before the sun becomes too bright to support life on Earth. For that reason alone I think human beings should stick around. I'm sure that there are other reasons out there, but that's the one that pops into my head. We should be banned from taking human life to any other place in the universe. We can't even look after the planet we live on. Let's not inflict the plague of humanity on any other planets. I don't know if humanity as we know it will be the ones to do it but I know that anything greater than humanity will have to come from humanity itself, whether that's a genetically (especially morally) enhanced version of us or an AI that is much smarter than us. You seem to think that our problem is moral. I agree that is partially true, like in how we've wiped out so much of natural life for our agriculture and aquaculture. However, I think that much of the rest of the problem is that we're simply not smart enough yet to be proper stewards and the only way out is forward. Once there is a being with the computational intelligence to understand life on a much deeper level I'm sure that change will come. We can choose to move forward and bring life to other worlds or we can remove ourselves from the system and let life, at least complex life, survive for about 100 million years tops.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 7, 2021 8:28:49 GMT
If shes dead and everyone else is starving to death, then her body is food.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 7, 2021 14:01:31 GMT
Yes, this is an abortion rights thread started by a feminist. It is a question worth asking however. If we agree that a woman’s body belongs to her when discussing abortion, does that mean she should have unrestricted access to abortion for the entire term of her pregnancy?
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Mar 7, 2021 15:46:39 GMT
Well no, of course not, unless someone were to really bastardize Karl Marx's idea and make a woman's body "public property" or something weird like that.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 7, 2021 21:44:51 GMT
Yes, this is an abortion rights thread started by a feminist. It is a question worth asking however. If we agree that a woman’s body belongs to her when discussing abortion, does that mean she should have unrestricted access to abortion for the entire term of her pregnancy? Good question. I have always thought of this issue as a sliding scale, weighing up the rights of one body against another. In really simplistic terms, the closer to either end of the 9 month scale the more the onus shifts. Fortunately most mothers are only too aware of this and , in connection with medical staff, make sometimes agonising decisions either way.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 7, 2021 21:58:07 GMT
If we agree that a woman’s body belongs to her when discussing abortion, does that mean she should have unrestricted access to abortion for the entire term of her pregnancy? Good question. I have always thought of this issue as a sliding scale, weighing up the rights of one body against another. In really simplistic terms, the closer to either end of the 9 month scale the more the onus shifts. Fortunately most mothers are only too aware of this and , in connection with medical staff, make sometimes agonising decisions either way. Then, at that point when the scale tips the other way, there must come that time when she no longer has total bodily autonomy.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 7, 2021 22:01:18 GMT
Good question. I have always thought of this issue as a sliding scale, weighing up the rights of one body against another. In really simplistic terms, the closer to either end of the 9 month scale the more the onus shifts. Fortunately most mothers are only too aware of this and , in connection with medical staff, make sometimes agonising decisions either way. Then, at that point when the scale tips the other way, there must come that time when she no longer has total bodily autonomy. You are missing the point. She always has total bodily autonomy, it is the circumstances that SHE must weigh up to make the best decision for her and her 'potential' family.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 7, 2021 23:23:08 GMT
Then, at that point when the scale tips the other way, there must come that time when she no longer has total bodily autonomy. You are missing the point. She always has total bodily autonomy, it is the circumstances that SHE must weigh up to make the best decision for her and her 'potential' family. If she always has bodily autonomy, then the onus doesn't shift, not in any consequential way. If she never loses any bodily autonomy, she must have unrestricted access to abortion for the entire term of her pregnancy. But if there comes a point in her term when her preference for an abortion must yield to the rights of the "other body", then, for that time, she doesn't have bodily autonomy.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 7, 2021 23:26:43 GMT
You are missing the point. She always has total bodily autonomy, it is the circumstances that SHE must weigh up to make the best decision for her and her 'potential' family. If she always has bodily autonomy, then the onus doesn't shift, not in any consequential way. If she never loses any bodily autonomy, she must have unrestricted access to abortion for the entire term of her pregnancy. But if there comes a point in her term when her preference for an abortion must yield to the rights of the "other body", then, for that time, she doesn't have bodily autonomy. No. She always has bodily autonomy as SHE has the decision making onus. It is either her preference to abort a fetus for whatever reason, or not.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Mar 7, 2021 23:29:03 GMT
Stupid question A woman`s body belongs to the woman. Stop asking stupid questions. I wouldn't have to aask stupid questions if the answers were non-controversial and harmful to victims of harmfull behaviour by others, or restrictive legislation for things that should not even be the subject of legislation. You don’t think the act of abortion is harmful behaviour with human foetuses the victims of the practice?
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 7, 2021 23:29:34 GMT
If she always has bodily autonomy, then the onus doesn't shift, not in any consequential way. If she never loses any bodily autonomy, she must have unrestricted access to abortion for the entire term of her pregnancy. But if there comes a point in her term when her preference for an abortion must yield to the rights of the "other body", then, for that time, she doesn't have bodily autonomy. No. She always has bodily autonomy as SHE has the decision making onus. It is either her preference to abort a fetus for whatever reason, or not. Then it's your position that a woman should have unrestricted access to abortion for the entire term of her pregnancy.
|
|
|
Post by OpiateOfTheMasses on Mar 7, 2021 23:30:18 GMT
In the overwhelming majority of situations the answer is of course yes. But if there were only two people alive, a man and a woman both capable of breeding, it goes without saying that the woman would be obligated to continue the species. But that's not just true of the woman but the man as well. If the woman were a lesbian and the man were gay the situation would call for both to go against their sexual orientations for the good of the species. Situations like that may come up for certain bloodlines but as far as I know it's more commonly accepted than not with reservation that individual bloodlines die out rather than force outsiders to continue them or have those who don't want to continue their bloodline to do so against their will. I don't have many specific examples to contribute, however, only imagined situations so I'm probably on the wrong side of the Dunning Krueger effect and won't say much more. Why? If we got down to the point that there really were only two people left in the universe then I think the decision as to whether or not to let the species continue or not is solely up to those two people. And frankly, expecting them to produce children and expecting those children to then interbreed is pretty horrific. So I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to achieve...
|
|