Aufan59

I appreciate the response, and I will respond to your points, but the question still remains, when else, aside from pregnancy, is one person entitled to use another person’s body? A mother can give up all legal obligations to their child, and a person can adopt legal obligations of a stranger child. The familial relationship is not what determines the legal obligation. And even so, a familial relationship does not oblige use of the body, I don’t have the rights to my mom’s kidney. As a side note, should we add unrelated surrogate mothers to the list of exceptions for abortion? In this case, use of another person’s body is acceptable if it is natural? Would you accept forced donations of breast milk to feed the hungry? As a side note, surrogate mothers again are an exception. Consenting to sex is not consenting to third person being able to use your body. Knowingly and intentionally becoming pregnant and giving birth does not obligate the mother to care for the child, as we’ve already established with adoption and safe haven laws. But the bigger point is, why does consent of the mother matter? Or in other words, when does a child of rape gain their rights not to be killed? I think this is a fair point, but to clarify there is no such thing as a non-terminal person. Someone’s life isn’t less valuable solely because they are going to die in the future. For all intents, actively killing the person in the womb is the same as removing them from them womb and letting them die on their own. The underlying point is the same, you are denying them use of your body. We agree point 1 and 2 are weak, I don’t care to argue them much further. Point 3 is interesting to me, but a non-starter as consent for sex or conception seems like a very arbitrary way to decide the rights of a person. Point 4 is most compelling to me and actually gets to the question I have, what other situation does one person have the rights to use another person’s body? What gives a person the right to use another person’s body?

Seems like a very low bar. What is the consensus among flat earthers about global warming? There are differing viewpoints about everything. Stating or even proving that there are differing viewpoints is meaningless.

I’d love a response or even a discussion, as I think I’m malleable on the topic. For example I didn’t always concede that personhood starts at conception. But it must, or else it is defined arbitrarily. Arbitrarily based on how long after conception the person has been alive, or worse, based on the circumstances of conception, I.e. rape or incest. Agreeing that personhood starts at conception, then we’re talking about two people. I don’t know of any other example where one person is entitled to use another person’s body without consent. So if the child is entitled to the mother’s body, with no recourse for the mother, that means one of two things: the child has more rights than the mother; or the mother never really had rights to her own body to begin with. I think Titan hints at the latter argument, that the woman really didn’t have such rights to begin with. I think to be fair, this is confounding bodily autonomy with legal obligation. I am liable when I speed while driving, it is not a violation of my bodily autonomy to be able to press my foot against the gas pedal. When I agree to become a driver I must follow the rules. Likewise I am legally obligated to care for my child when I agree to being their legal guardian, this is not a violation of my bodily autonomy. Bodily autonomy is about having ownership of my body, not another person or the government. Overall I think it is an interesting discussion. As a small government conservative that believes in personal liberties, of course I believe in the right to bodily autonomy. It might not be spelled out in the constitution, but it is certainly implied right. That being said I am always open and interested in hearing the opinion of a big government liberal, who has an argument for government taking away our personal liberty.

Why not? Name one other situation where one person is entitled to use another person’s body.

This is a very loose definition of kill. Have you killed every person that has died on the organ transplant list? Refusing to let another human use your body so they can survive is not killing. If I can’t deny the use of my kidneys, blood, bone marrow or womb to another person, they have more rights than I do.

The stance has nothing to do with eviction. It also applies to other situations that don’t involve eviction, for example a mother is not legally required to donate a kidney, blood or bone marrow to their child. The argument is that both mother and child are humans with rights. No human is entitled to another person’s body. There is no other example of this being true. To posit that the baby has rights to the mother’s body is to posit they aren’t equal.

You brought the point about parental duties in your second response to me. Parental duties do not require one human using the body of another with no alternatives. It is not a good comparison.

You’re creating straw men and distractions that have nothing to do with the point. Why introduce an argument about a third party father assaulting a pregnant woman? Or the mother ingesting illegal drugs that harm another person? Irrelevant. Anyways, let’s distill the argument: -we agree that personhood and rights begin at conception - we agree that a mother can legally forfeit her obligations to the child via adoption and safe haven laws - we disagree on when the mother can legally forfeit her obligations to the child My argument: a person is never obligated to give up their bodily autonomy for another person. For example, you aren’t legally obligated to donate a kidney to save your child’s life. Likewise, you aren’t legally obligated to carry your child until viability. However once the baby is viable outside of the womb, abortion is obviously a violation of their rights. It is as if viability is a great line in the sand to draw to respect individual rights? If only they decided that like 50 years ago.

We don’t have to wait until 2100 to know the difference between entropy and radiative forcing. This is not even about climate change, politics, the 1970s, etc. This is about the study you posted, that you don’t understand, that is just “offering a different view point.” Please just admit your only criteria is “a different viewpoint”.

So no need to lie to them with bull**** studies right?

Yikes if you actually have kids and grandkids though.

It’s definitely a BS study, one you don’t understand but only post because it’s alternative. But we do agree that we both don’t care what happens in 2100.

Is this your excuse for posting bull**** studies? To counter the fear?

We agree on adoption! There is no legal obligation for a mother to giver up her bodily autonomy for her child. Also, none of these examples counter my point that the woman and child are both people with equal rights. I agree that these people should be punished as if the baby in womb was a person. I don’t think you aren’t paying attention but my argument is that the baby is a person with equal rights! I think you might be agreeing with me!

Differing opinion is fine. Posting “scientific studies” that conflate scientific terms to confuse people is not fine.