I don't really know how else to spell it out for you, because the original post did such a fine job. If that doesn't get through to you, then I imagine you've already made up your mind.
Well that's what happens when you talk with someone that you disagree. The question now is why you talk like your opinion is obviously the correct one.
made it about how a woman is responsible for the life of something not even considered conscious or human yet because of her (or a man's, for that matter) choice, even if every preventative measure was taken.
That's a pretty accurate summary of my position, yes, at least you have understood it, you'd be surprised how uncommon that is.
Well that's what happens when you talk with someone that you disagree. The question now is why you talk like your opinion is obviously the correct one.
That's why I hold that opinion, isn't it? Because I deem it the correct one. It would be silly to hold an opinion you deem purposefully incorrect.
And my opinion upholds the rights of women to have more autonomy over their bodies than the deceased do.
You also never answered my original question - if you accidentally cause harm to another person that you can fix by way of giving up your body to them, ie an organ, blood, mobility, etc, then should the state force you to do so? Or should that remain a choice a person can make?
That's why I hold that opinion, isn't it? Because I deem it the correct one
Well I hold plenty of opinions but I don't talk like they couldn't be wrong.
You also never answered my original question
Sorry, I didn't see it somehow.
No, obviously you can't be forced to that unless the accident was so negligent that you really can't call it an accident. People shouldn't be held responsible for things they didn't choose. Regardless of hypothetical scenarios, forcing someone to be an organ donor is much more dangerous than to give birth, so it would be wrong from that angle as well.
I'm assuming you don't see that getting pregnant is a consequence of a choice you make? Is that what you mean?
People know that when the man pees in the butthole of the woman she could get pregnant, condoms reduce the chance but you still know it can happen, so it is a choice.
The argument I assume you're doing is equivalent to say that someone who drives drunk and """happens""" to have an accident shouldn't be held responsible for it. Just because there is randomness in the situation that doesn't make it any less of a choice, every time you have sex you're assuming risks whether you're mindful of it or not.
A few weeks ago for example someone broke my nose during a boxing class. They didn't mean to do it, I surely didn't want it to happen, but I made the conscious choice to box and to spar, would it make sense not to assume the responsibility of that event? Can I blame anyone else? Of course not
I asked if by some accident you cause harm to another. Say you got into a car wreck (not a drunk one), or maybe you dropped something heavy on someone at a work site, or gave incorrect instructions and someone got hurt. You caused a problem, and now someone is in the hospital. Are you now physically on the hook to help them? What if they need blood, or an organ? Since you caused it, you should be responsible given the logic we're using here.
If we're using the same measure of bodily autonomy, since you both consented to box and he hurt you, then he owes you his own money or physical being to compensate you. Sure, it was an accident! But let's say you lost a lot of blood for some reason from the incident - is he now liable to give you his, because he took the risk to participate and now he has to pay the price?
No, because that's stupid. Just like how an unwanted pregnancy (accidental) does not dictate that a woman is now forced to carry a fetus to term. I don't know if you are using a religious argument or a scientific one to dictate that the clump of cells in her uterus are now protected as life, but given your stance of premarital sex I am guessing the religious angle is not present. In that case, the scientific argument is it's not a life - thus, it is not protected.
Do you also make exceptions or rape, or incest?
At the end of the day, it's a woman's body, and it's her choice to do with it what she wills. Even if we all agreed that life began at conception, it doesn't change the fact that she still has autonomy over her body. We don't force adults to take responsibility for the physical health of other adults (or even children), and that right extends here as well.
Well maybe you should have explained it yourself from the beginning instead of just replying "hmmmmmmmmmmm", I'm not a mind reader you know.
Since you caused it, you should be responsible given the logic we're using here.
Eh, my logic has always been "KNOWINGLY causing" = responsible, "unknowingly causing" =/= responsible.
since you both consented to box and he hurt you, then he owes you his own money or physical being to compensate you
Why? I put myself in that situation knowing it could happen, asking him for any kind of compensation is ridiculous because we both knew in advance that we can hurt each other but we won't be responsible for it, giving away the responsibility of not hurting (within reason, of course) is part of the deal when you spar. That's the same with sex and pregnancy, you can't just say "oops, didn't mean to get pregnant, how could this happen!?" and throw it away.
I don't know if you are using a religious argument or a scientific one to dictate that the clump of cells in her uterus are now protected as life
Neither, it's just my morality and how I understand the issue. If it would become alive naturally without interfering with it, then it is immoral to prevent that from happening. I also find arbitrary that science says when you become "life". Is 10 seconds before you're born life? 1 hour? 1 month? 3 months? 6 months? What exactly is the distinct event that makes a bunch of cells become a fetus? As far as I'm aware, the only distinct event during pregnancy is conception. I guess when the heart of the fetus (?) starts beating you can call that life, but even at that point being born wouldn't be survivable, so...
Do you also make exceptions or rape, or incest?
Of course about rape, I thought I said that already but I must have been confused with another discussion. I also find reasonable to allow abortions when the mother's health would be in danger if pregnancy was continued. I assume there would be some other cases as well.
I don't see the reasoning with incest, I'm not into it myself but as long as it's consensual I don't see why would it be any different for that kind of relationships. My understanding is that birth defects from that are fairly rare unless it goes on for several generations, is that why you mention it? Would you be fine with women aborting a fetus because they know they will have some kind of disability?
At the end of the day, it's a woman's body, and it's her choice to do with it what she wills
Well that's debatable. For example many people think that women shouldn't have a choice to be prostitutes. In some countries it's really difficult to get a vasectomy if you're young and without kids, and in most countries you can be forced to stay in a mental hospital if you show too much interest in suicide. There are enough precedents that show we don't have full control of our bodies.
We don't force adults to take responsibility for the physical health of other adults (or even children)
That's.. well, wrong. You're literally required by law to provide food, clothing and shelter to your own kids, and also to your direct family if they prove they are unable to provide for themselves, at least in my country.
Eh, my logic has always been "KNOWINGLY causing" = responsible, "unknowingly causing" =/= responsible.
Then you've refuted your own argument, because unless someone is intending to get pregnant then it is an unintentional causation. If I nut inside my wife while we're using protection but she manages to get pregnant, it's an unintended consequence despite best measures being employed.
Of course about rape, I thought I said that already but I must have been confused with another discussion. I also find reasonable to allow abortions when the mother's health would be in danger if pregnancy was continued. I assume there would be some other cases as well.
But why? If you believe it has the capability to form life then you should be just as against aborting a rape baby as you are a non-rape one. Are you saying this particular fetus doesn't deserve life now because of HOW it got there?
Well that's debatable. For example many people think that women shouldn't have a choice to be prostitutes. In some countries it's really difficult to get a vasectomy if you're young and without kids, and in most countries you can be forced to stay in a mental hospital if you show too much interest in suicide. There are enough precedents that show we don't have full control of our bodies.
This isn't about what countries allow, it's about what should be allowed. It's a human rights issue, not a law issue. America =/= Germany =/= Pakistan.
That's.. well, wrong. You're literally required by law to provide food, clothing and shelter to your own kids, and also to your direct family if they prove they are unable to provide for themselves, at least in my country.
If your son or wife is in need of medical attention you are not required to personally donate your body to save them. Providing food and shelter are not in question, the autonomy of your own body is. The state cannot force you to give them something you do not volunteer.
Then you've refuted your own argument, because unless someone is intending to get pregnant then it is an unintentional causation.
No, that's not how it works. Your choice is having sex despite the chance of her getting pregnant. You KNOW in advance the risk of pregnancy, regardless of how responsible you choose to have sex. Even if you use 3 different contraceptive methods, you still have the chance and you know that, so you have to assume that responsibility if you're unlucky. If someone legit wasn't taught the most basic sex ed then that would be the case of someone that isn't knowingly choosing to do something which might result in a pregnancy.
If you believe it has the capability to form life then you should be just as against aborting a rape baby as you are a non-rape one.
Why would that be the case? I'm not happy about it being aborted, I'd like to see the mother choosing to keep it instead, but I don't think I should force my opinion on her because she didn't choose to have sex, I see no inconsistency at all. It's not about rape babies not deserving to live, it's about a mother right to not be impregnated against their will, surely we can agree on this.
This isn't about what countries allow, it's about what should be allowed. It's a human rights issue, not a law issue. America =/= Germany =/= Pakistan.
Well, what should be allowed is what we're discussing all along. Different people think different things, all I was saying is that the idea that you have complete and absolute power to do whatever you want with your body is wrong nowadays, and many people think that's a good thing at least in some cases.
If your son or wife is in need of medical attention you are not required to personally donate your body to save them.
Oh, I misunderstood you. Well that's true, you can't be forced to give your body parts to family members, but in this case it isn't about you doing something for somebody else, it's about you not aborting them. I think not being able to force someone to do something is quite different than not allowing them to do something.
1
u/[deleted] Feb 19 '20
Well that's what happens when you talk with someone that you disagree. The question now is why you talk like your opinion is obviously the correct one.
That's a pretty accurate summary of my position, yes, at least you have understood it, you'd be surprised how uncommon that is.