Aufan59

I think this is the underlying point. There is no comparison. So my point remains, if abortion before viability is not legal, then the person in the womb has extra rights. The right to use another person’s body, at the detriment of another person’s rights. I’m not saying that this is wrong. But it certainly is a new right with no similar cases. A new right that needs to be established, not just assumed to be true. It certainly contradicts “all men are created equal”. This new right also has some questionable exceptions. You might consider them edge cases, but I consider them very arbitrary reasons to revoke a right. A person conceived without consent may not have these extra rights? These rights are dependent on the action of a third party? While there are no examples of this extra right being granted anywhere else, there are many examples of the right to bodily autonomy being protected. Even examples that result in the intentional death of another person. For example I can kill someone who is actively kidnapping me. There are countless cases protecting our bodily autonomy, but none protecting a right to another person’s bodily autonomy. I’m glad to hear more arguments why extra rights should be granted to a certain group of people at the detriment of others. But for me to be convinced, these rights need solid footing, without arbitrary means of removal, and generally adhere to the concept that all men are created equal.

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.

I don’t think you are familiar with safe haven laws. Mothers are allowed to legally give up their new borns to the state.

My point is that no human should be forced to give up their bodily autonomy for another person. You’re making a false comparison to parental duties, which don’t require giving up bodily autonomy to fulfill.

**** if I know. I’m just here to tell you that quoting bull**** studies doesn’t help, regardless of what side you are on with this $50 trillion dollar question.

There are many ways from preventing a baby from starving, including methods that don’t give the baby rights to another person’s body. Maybe you have heard of baby formula? Feel free to presume my position, but it is based on all humans having equal rights. Which is what America was founded on and what Roe v Wade was decided on.

No problem. The study used is confounding scientific terms to cause confusion. ”Enthalpy” is the term for energy contained in matter. Warm water has more enthalpy than ice, for example. All matter has enthalpy. The CO2 in the atmosphere has enthalpy. The oxygen and nitrogen do too. The study is confounding enthalpy with the greenhouse effect. For those ignorant to science, like Jordan Peterson who tweeted this study, it might sound compelling. But I will be glad to argue the science with anyone who confuses enthalpy with radiative forcing.

I agree in principle, but we must be careful with how you define “power to kill”. In the case of abortion, the mother is not granting the use of her body to another human. That human is free to live their life without the mother.

The greenhouse effect. Namely CO2 and its absorption and radiation of infrared energy.

Where did I say the composition of the atmosphere has nothing to do with temp and its variation?

Incrementalism is a new concept to me but completely unarguable. America was founded on individual liberty, in a gigantic, revolutionary, non-incremental step. It was not founded in “steps that the culture can handle”. That never would have worked. There are many examples of this, and Roe v. Wade is a great one. It did not establish “exceptions where it’s ok to kill innocent human beings”. It established that a mother and child have perfectly equal rights, and neither one is entitled to the other person’s body. Culture says that the person inside the womb has more rights than the person with the womb. But the founding principles of America say they both are equal people.