On the Rights of the UnbornPosted 7 years Ago

At 5/28/2013 7:21:23 PM, Jzyehoshua wrote:
There is no "institution of bodily sovereignty." What are you talking about? This is a made up doctrine designed to suit supporters of abortion with no basis in law.

No, it's not. Bodily sovereignty existed long before abortion was ever a legal issue. Long before Roe v. Wade.

The right to life only exists because of bodily sovereignty. Without the claim to bodily ownership, I have just as much a right to your body as you do, which means I have just as much a right to your life as you do.

Do you understand now?

You have a right to life but not to kill other people, which is the core issue at stake here.

Wrong. You do have a right to kill others, but only under certain circumstances, mostly ranging in the category of self-defense. Defense from what you might ask? Typically, physical defense. From having your bodily sovereignty violated.

The child did not do any of the things you're trying to compare it to doing, barging into a home?

I never used that as an example. Straw man.

It never attacked anyone, it's just surviving and trying to live.

Yes, and it's right to live does not extend to the violation of other's bodily sovereignty. Just because it needs to live, doesn't mean it has a right to violate one's bodily sovereignty in a quest to live. This is a really simply concept, and I have explained it to you several different times, in several different ways. You are being willfully ignorant at this point.

The "right to life" you say the woman has is to not deal with the inconvenience of 9 months of childbirth so the child can live and be adopted instead. The right to life of the child is for survival. I think there's something of a distinction there, one that is a right, and one that is not.

I'm not even sure what you're talking about here. every being has a right to life. Every being also has a right to bodily sovereignty.

These rights are suspended when one violates another's rights. In this case, the fetus is violating the mother's right to bodily sovereignty, by remaining in her womb, when she no longer desires it there. It's right to life does not mean it gets to stay, because it's right to life does not give it permission to violate her right to bodily sovereignty. If it does not leave, she has every right to remove it by any means necessary. Abortion at this point in time is, for better or worse, the only means available. Therefore, it's right to life is suspended, in favor of the mother's right to bodily sovereignty.

So why, once she's chosen to create life, is she unaccountable for her actions?

Um, hello? She's not unaccountable. She's still held responsible, in one form or another. Abortion isn't being held "unaccountable", it's simply taking one route of responsibility as opposed to another. As we previously discussed, it's not a "get out of jail free" card.

Why can she decide to kill that life for any reason? How is that moral?

Because it's violating her right to bodily sovereignty. In the same way that if she was being raped or assaulted, she has a right to preserve her bodily sovereignty, even at the cost of the violators life. In this case, the fetus is violating her bodily sovereignty by remaining in the womb when it is no longer desired or allowed to be there. The fetus has no right to the mother's womb. It is the mother's womb, not the fetus'. She does not have to share it with the fetus if she does not desire. She therefore, has every right to remove the fetus, but any means necessary. Abortion is currently the only means available.

If that upsets you, I suggest you get on finding a way to remove the fetus without killing it. As it stands however, with abortion being the only way to remove the fetus, it must remain legal, for the preservation of the institution of bodily sovereignty.

Or would you rather live in a world without bodily sovereignty?

Only if one decides responsibility and accountability are "oppression" as you repeatedly insist.

Nope. There was simply no logical connection between a fetus "becoming human", and responsibility to care for and birth that fetus.

Also, straw man.

Right to life is inalienable...

Nope. One's right to life is most certainly not absolute, as evidenced, again, by how it is justified to kill someone in self-defense.

... given by a Creator....

1) Prove this creator's existence.
2) Why should we care what this being thinks?

...according to the Declaration of Independence...

Which is not even a legal document, let alone an authority of any kind on moral matters and issues of rights. It's a declaration of independence from a foreign country; nothing more. It means nothing.

...not given by a mother or anyone else's desire for said life.

Wrong. Rights are a completely man-made idea, if you want to get technical. They are not "given" to us, they are made by us, based upon what would make the most logical and beneficial society.

Bodily sovereignty has no basis in law.

...

Are you f*cking kidding me?

Alright. Tell me why it's illegal to rape. Tell me why it's illegal to assault someone. I mean, f*cking hell man, do you have any idea what you're talking about?

They should if they're the one who caused it.

So if a rock climber sets up their gear perfectly, but even still, something goes wrong, and they fall and break their back, you would leave them to suffer?

If a rock climber chooses to free climb, slips and falls, and becomes critically injured, you would also leave them to suffer?

...I mean jesus dude, you have the gall to call me immoral...

Sovereignty is no excuse for killing others.

Yes, it is, if it's the only way you can protect yourself from having your sovereignty violated. I.e. defending from an attacker or rapist or molester, ect. The moment your bodily sovereignty is violated, if in order to protect yourself, the violator is killed, you were justified in doing it.

No one should have "sovereignty" to do whatever they want when that includes harming others.

Straw man. That's not what we're talking about.

You want to expand right to one's body absolutely so that it includes anything and everything.

No, I want to keep the right to one's body the same, and not let you take it away. I'm not expanding anything. the right to bodily sovereignty means the right to deny people access to your body, and that includes fetus'. You are the only one wanting to change that, by taking it away.

I ask you again, do you really want to live in a world without bodily sovereignty?

What you don't seem to realize is that so absolute a definition allows murder, rape, theft, and any other usage of a body/"bodily sovereignty" to harm other people by your own reasoning.

What the hell are you talking about? Theft has NOTHING to do with bodily sovereignty first of all, secondly, rape and murder are PREVENTED by the right to bodily sovereignty, not allowed because of it. I'm convinced you don't even know what bodily sovereignty means at this point.

You argue the child doesn't have a right to the mother's body? Why do you think it doesn't?

For the same reason I don't have a right to your body, nor you to anyone else's body. Bodily sovereignty. The right to own your own body, and deny people access to your body. This includes the fetus, if we're declaring it human.

Only for justified reasons, not for any reason under any circumstances like you want to justify abortion with.

I am justifying abortion; any unwanted fetus is violating a mother's bodily sovereignty. That's the justification. And that's all the justification necessary to remove it. It's not for whatever reason I want, it's for a very specific, easily defined reason. Bodily sovereignty.
Forums Home > Politics

On the Rights of the UnbornPosted 7 years Ago

At 5/28/2013 7:12:36 PM, Sower4GS wrote:
At 5/28/2013 4:01:35 PM, sadolite wrote:
An unborn human being has no rights. "It" is no different than say, fecal matter.

Do you have a dictionary? They are two entirely different definitions, totally different.
Your off.
Because they are different YHWH says fetuses have "rights". Who cares if man says different.

1) Show me where Yahweh says fetus' have rights.
2) Show me where he says those rights override a mother's right to bodily sovereignty.
3) Prove these things are Yahweh's words.
4) By extension, prove Yahweh exists.
5) Explain why we should care what Yahweh thinks.
Forums Home > Politics

Debating Newb PeoplePosted 7 years Ago

I don't debate "for fun" so to speak. I mean, I obviously enjoy debate. But I don't debate just for the sake of arguing. I only debate when I agree or disagree with a given resolution.

I also never (well, almost never) make my own debates, but rather, only respond to debates put forth by others. Why I have developed this habit I cannot say, but I suspect it has something to do with a desire to "not go looking for a fight".

However, there is a problem with this particular type of method. Typically this results in me debating a large number of new debaters, who are almost always in my experience, absolutely pathetic and inept at debating. In the past I haven't cared, all I cared about was making arguments and proving a point. But I've grown to have mixed feelings about it. I mean, on the one hand, it's almost sad. Going in, and making good arguments, only to have drivel in return, or sometimes just straight up disappearances mid-debate. And you run the risk or driving away new members.

But on the other hand, the lack of response to them could also drive away these new members. Or rather, not provide any incentive to keep coming back and improving. It also is one less person having their ideas and worldview challenged, which does not promote intellectual growth.

So what's your view on this DDO? Is debating obviously inferior, new competition, shameful, or tolerable, or even necessary?
Forums Home > Debate.org

On the Rights of the UnbornPosted 7 years Ago

At 5/28/2013 4:07:15 PM, Jzyehoshua wrote:
The right to life is an inalienable right according to the Declaration of Independence,

Which isn't even the law of the land, let alone holding value to this discussion, so what possible relevance does it have?

one of the three fundamental rights our founding fathers recognized. "Bodily sovereignty" is not named in the Declaration of Independence, not named in the Bill of Rights, and was just inferred very shakily by the courts from 4th amendment against search and seizure of property by soldiers.

A right does not need to be listed in any of those to be a right. Rights are not determined by law. Further more, what about other countries. What's your argument for them going to be? "Our legal documents don't recognize bodily sovereignty, so you guys don't have those rights either!"

Give me a break.

Oh, and by the way, the "right to life" is listed, which, as you will recall, necessitates a right to bodily sovereignty. There can be no right to life without a right to bodily sovereignty. Also, the declaration mentions a right to "the pursuit of happiness", which you could argue you are violating by forcing mother's to carry a child. ;)

No right should be so absolute it supersedes another's inalienable rights.

I...ugh...the stupid...

Do you realize what "inalienable" means? It means "absolute". You basically said "No right should be so absolute it supersedes someone's absolute rights". That's not even a logically coherent sentence.

Right to free speech does not allow one to falsely yell fire in a crowded theater causing a stampede so people die. Right to one's body does not allow one to use that body to murder an innocent person. Right to privacy does not allow one to kill another in the privacy of their own home.

And right to life does not allow you to violate one's bodily sovereignty. Like the fetus. And when one does violate another's rights, some of their rights may become suspended. Like a rapists' right to life when they victimize someone, or a murderer's right to life when they attempt to murder someone, or the fetus' right to life when it violates the mother's bodily sovereignty.

All of your analogies deal with cases where another person is being attacked,

Uh, what? Hardly.

not a child born through no fault of its own that is murdered because its parents want to live promiscuously or don't want to undergo the childbirth process even though adoption is an alternative.

And emotionally charged language is meaningless in the face is cold, hard logic. Take your emotional appeals elsewhere, and come back when you have a logically sound argument.

Oh, and learn what "inalienable" means. Seriously...that was just pathetic.

According to the Declaration of Independence...

Which is a meaningless document in this situation as it neither is a complete more compass, nor a lawful document.

I mean, you do realize, we are governed by the United States Constitution, right? Not the Declaration of Independence. I mean, the declaration didn't even make us an independent nation. Its just a declaration, nothing more. Watch.

I'm the king of the world!

See? My declaration doesn't mean sh*t.

Alternatively, bow down before me, vassal.

...government obtains its right only through the will of the people...

Not what the Constitution says.

...and when it becomes destructive of their rights should be overthrown or altered.

Again, not what the Constitution says. If you're going to try and make a legalistic argument, please learn what document is actually the law of the land?

According to the Gettysburg Address...

Still not the Constitution, or a legal document.

Furthermore, if one rejects the Declaration of Independence, one can no longer assert one's own freedom from England, as that is the basis for their own freedom and rights.

Holy sh*t, do you even know what the Constitution is? The Declaration of Independence didn't make us independent of England, nor did it even make us a nation. Good lord...

So it's like a spouse in a relationship hiring a hitman to kill their significant other complaining about the financial cost of hiring the hitman, is that your point?

That's a poor example to compare abortion to, but if you want to take it there, in a literal sense, yes, they did not get out of that relationship for free.

With that said, that's as far as the similarities between that scenario and abortion go. If you're going to play the allegory game, please at least try to be good at it.

It is bodily sovereignty...

No, it's not. Having to pay someone money is not a violation of your bodily sovereignty because that has nothing to do with one's ownership of their body. Jesus f*cking Christ man. It's in the name!

Why do you say it's oppression for someone to just be held accountable for their actions?

Straw man.

You seem to think helping support a child you bring into existence is "oppression."

No, I think forcing someone to bring a child into existence against their will, an act of violating their bodily sovereignty, is oppression. This isn't really hard logic to follow.

Again though, you're not just forcing the child out. You're not just causing premature birth, your killing it in often painful fashion. Whole different analogy.

No, you are forcing the child out; by any means necessary. If the only means necessary is killing it, then as unfortunate as that is, it must be so.

The moment another method for removing the fetus without killing it develops, you can talk to me about what is "just killing". Until then, however, it's not "just killing". It's protecting the mother's bodily sovereignty by the only means currently available.

Your argument seems to be that people have the right to not get pregnant...

Well, to an extent, yes. I mean, if they don't ant to get pregnant, they have a right to not have someone to force them to get pregnant.

But I suspect that's not what you were talking about.

...and if they do by some accident of their own fault they aren't responsible for the child's life, and can have it killed at will.

It's a little more complex than that. The mother has a right to bodily sovereignty, which the fetus' existence does not override. If the mother wants the fetus gone, the fetus' presence there is now violating that sovereignty. So she has every right to have it removed; if that comes down to having it killed, then so be it.

otherwise the choice was made to engage in action capable of leading to pregnancy.

Just like a rock climber made the choice to engage in an action capable of leading to serious injury, and possibly death.

I guess we should leave them to "take responsibility" if and when that occurs, huh?

As such, the parents are responsible for the child's life, and shouldn't just be able to kill it without justification.

Good thing there is responsibility; violation of bodily sovereignty.

Now, what's your justification for forcing countless women you have no relation to, to suffer through 9 months of that violation?
Forums Home > Politics

On the Rights of the UnbornPosted 7 years Ago

At 5/28/2013 3:46:23 PM, Jzyehoshua wrote:
So what choice did an unborn child take part in?

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter what part the unborn child plays. The fact is, it's there, and she wants it gone. It must leave, or be forcibly removed. Unless you want to toss out the institution of bodily sovereignty, this is how it works. And I'm almost positive you wouldn't this to occur.

I mean, you do realize that for a right to life to be relevant, it REQUIRES that one have bodily sovereignty. If you take away the institution of bodily sovereignty, you have no right to life, because I have just as much a right to do what I want with your body as you do.

She chose to take part in action that could create life.

Also irrelevant. Again, look at my rock climber example.

Logically once a child reaches the point of development where it is clearly human, the mother should be held accountable for its life.

Nope. There is no logical connection there.

Your whole argument seems to revolve around the claim that any form of reasonable accountability and responsibility for one's choices is 'oppression.'

No, my argument is that bodily sovereignty overrides the right to life necessarily, and as such, the mother is justified in killing the fetus, in defense of her bodily sovereignty. Come on, stay on topic.

In reality choices are supposed to be accompanied by responsibility.

Not always. Again, the rock climbing example. Just because something unfortunate happens from an activity, doesn't mean someone should be left to suffer with that consequence.

No, I'm saying we should restrict abortion to around the 12 week period instead of allowing it in all 9 months as is currently the case...

That is still taking away her right to bodily sovereignty. Ergo my statement. You have only proved my claim.

I keep saying I do not oppose abortion so long as it's not demonstrably after the point where a child becomes human.

1) Humans are subject to the same rules and regulations that govern a morally functioning society, i.e., bodily sovereignty. You have only justified my case.
2) The child does not have a right to the mother's body. Stop pretending it does.

Or alternatively, justify a society without bodily sovereignty.

If you kill the person while they are in your house though, which is the equivalent analogy, the law will hold you accountable though, right?

Nope. Again, self-defense. If you want them gone, and they won't leave, you can force them out, or even kill them. They are violating your property rights. You have every right to dispose of them as you wish, if they are on your property, violating those rights.

Like I said before, privacy and sovereignty is no use for using that privacy to kill another life.

You are logically and factually incorrect here. It's entirely a reason. A rape victim has every right to defend themselves from a rape, even if it results in the death of the rapist. A property owner has every right to defend their property from unwanted people, either by themselves, or by calling upon the state (police). In either case, they are justified in killing the person who refuses to leave, if it comes down to it.

On the contrary, I agree that men should be held to some degree responsible for creating human life, although the degree is debatable. I think responsibility should accompany choices, that didn't used to be a radical view.

You're right. Which is precisely why it is a barbaric view.

Of course it's a violation of bodily sovereignty, your body is committed to holding that rope.

That is not a violation of bodily sovereignty. It's clear you do not understand what we are talking about when we discuss bodily sovereignty. We're talking about one's right to not have their body used by others against their will. Having the responsibility of holding a rope does not constitute a violation of bodily sovereignty.

It really worries me that you do not even understand what bodily sovereignty is.

You choose to care for their life and can't then just destroy their life because you feel like it for any reason or no reason.

If by "care for their life" you mean, allow them access to my body, then yes, I can to choose when that access stops, if it occurs at all. Not you, or them, or anyone else. It is my body. Not the fetus'. It has no right to it. To say it does opens the floodgates to a world without bodily sovereignty which, in addition to being morally compromising, simply creates and unstable and chaotic society. Again, the right to bodily sovereignty is necessary for the right to life to even be a thing.

One example? If someone like John Wayne Gacy or Ted Bundy uses their bodily sovereignty...

Holy sh*t, you have no idea what bodily sovereignty is, do you?

...to strangle or stab others to death, then the Law has the right to imprison them in solitary confinement and ultimately give them the Death Penalty.

Bodily sovereignty deals with innocents, not those guilt of a violation. For instances, if someone is attacking you, in an attempt to murder you, they are violating your bodily sovereignty. This violation means there's is suspended, and you have every right to attack them in self-defense; even kill them.

How do you not understand this?

They lose their bodily sovereignty and right to privacy via imprisonment and death because they harmed others.

They lose their right to life and bodily sovereignty, because they violated someone's bodily sovereignty?

Wait for it...

You have now justified abortion. Thank you, and goodnight.

The law has a right to stop those who use their rights to harm others.

Like the fetus harming the mother, by sapping energy and resources from her, when she no longer desires it to be there? By how it violates her bodily sovereignty?

Once again, you have now justified abortion.

Again, as in the case of holding a rope for someone scaling a cliff, she becomes responsible for the child's life, not just before man, but before God.

There are so many things wrong with this sentence. (1) Holding a rope is not a violation of bodily sovereignty, (2) a life being created doesn't necessarily make her responsible for birthing it; it just makes her responsible for making a decision about what to do with it, (3) prove God exists, and finally, (4) explain why we should give a damn what God thinks or wants?

Society also is responsible for protecting the child's life...

Not when protecting that life would negate one's bodily sovereignty. Just the opposite; as bodily sovereignty overrides the right to life, the state is responsible for protecting that sovereignty. This is why, among other things, I cannot harvest your organs against your will. You must have my permission, even if me saying no means you will die. Even if my actions got you in that position to begin with. Your right to life does not override my right to bodily sovereignty.

...and has the right to intervene to stop her as with any other serial killer to protect the inalienable right to life.

1) The right to life isn't inalienable. It is superseded by the right to bodily sovereignty necessarily, as without bodily sovereignty, there can be no right to life.
2) If the right to life is inalienable, then your above example about executing serial killers is rendered void, as the State cannot violate that right.

How can you claim the child is "beating" on the mother? It didn't ask to be born, it never attacked the mother.

No, it's just sapping energy and resources from the mother, against her will, causing her 9 months of stressful and sometimes painful living, against her will, and ultimately, undergoing the costly, painful, and on some occasions, life-threatening process of birth. Also against her will.

If that's not a violation of
Forums Home > Politics

On the Rights of the UnbornPosted 7 years Ago

At 5/28/2013 3:16:39 AM, Jzyehoshua wrote:
True, but she chose to take part in action she knew could cause pregnancy.

Just like the rock climber chose to take part in an action that could endanger their life. What's your point? The fact that she took a risk means nothing.

I argue when she takes part in an action she knows can create another life, she should be held just as accountable as a man who is required to pay child support.

Freedom in inequality is better than equality in oppression. Past and present injustices do not justify creating future injustices.

I'm not saying we shouldn't help.

No, you're just saying we should take away her only ability to protect her bodily sovereignty, and avoid undergoing a bothersome, and ultimately painful, process, for a child that she doesn't even desire, and most likely will not keep.

Yes, that's totally helping her. *rollseyes*

Inevitably it will be gone within a 9-month period though, right?

Of course, but that doesn't matter. It's still HER body. It's HER "house", figuratively speaking. If I invite you over, for the purpose of having you stay for 9 months (maybe you just lost your own home, maybe you have business in the area, ect.), but somewhere along the lines, for whatever reason (a fight, financial issues, ect.) I demand you leave, you don't get to say "I'll leave in X months", you leave THEN.

And if you don't, I get the State to take you off the premises. Figurative abortion.

I'd say that's actually less strict on a woman than a man who is required to pay 18 years of child support for his part in the decision, right?

Again with the bloody child support.

Look, with both agree that sucks, we both agree it's dumb, and needs to change. So stop bringing it up. It's not going to get you anywhere, because freedom in inequality is always better than equality in oppression. You're just spouting hot air. Try actually attacking abortion, not just parroting nonsense.

This seems to me like saying that if I agree to hold a rope for someone scaling a cliff, I can decide to let go if I want to.

Holding a rope is not comparable to pregnancy, as being responsible for a rope is not a violation of bodily sovereignty, or anything close to a violation of freedom of a kind. It is a poor, inaccurate example.

Once I make that decision, I'm responsible for their life and can't just negate it for any reason I feel like.

Of course, because you've agreed to a certain responsibility with another party, and to not fulfill that responsibility is to endanger their life.

Being held accountable for that obligation is not a violation of bodily sovereignty, so your example is not comparable. Give me an example where it is okay to violate someone's bodily sovereignty on the basis of an agreement.

"Hey baby, you said we could have sex, so I'm having sex with you, whether you want to now or not!"

Wait a minute...

Therefore this is about whether the fetus is human, not bodily sovereignty which should not condone murder with that body.

Whether or not it is human is entirely irrelevant. If it's not human, we should have no qualms about killing it. If it is human, then it is subject to the same rules and regulations as a human being, including bodily sovereignty. It has no right to the mother's body. It only has the mother's permission; permission she can revoke at any time she chooses, hence the sovereignty part of bodily sovereignty. It's her body, not the fetus'.

Generally if the terms of the contract involve killing another person, you'd say that's too extreme to be permissible by law.

You'd be surprised. Take marriage for example. Marriage is a contract of a kind, at least in the legal sense, and to break that contract you have to go through heavy processes, and ultimately, will still be obligated in some form to support your former spouse. Say however you are in an abusive relationship. Say one night things get a little heated, and your spouse begins to beat on you again. But rather than sitting down to take it, you fight back, which ends up one way or another resulting in their death.

Any sane juror will understand the situation, and release you from any contractual obligations.

I guess in your world however, they should be charged with murder.

It only comes down to personhood and whether the child is human for if so, I see no reason logically that murder can be condoned.

No, personhood is irrelevant, as again, bodily sovereignty supersedes the right to life. you cannot deny this fact. I have given you literally thousands of examples. The right of a person to defend their body from being used against their will overrides the right of a violator to live. If you do not agree with this, you have now opened the doors for people to use others bodies against their wills. Rape victims are no longer allowed to defend themselves by any means necessary, people in need of organ or blood transplants have the right to force some random no name off the street corner to give it to them, against their will, as their right to life overrides the strangers' bodily sovereignty, ect. Is that really the reality you want?

All of which I agree with, and furthermore, the American people agree with.

And I really don't care about what the American public thinks, because population has no bearing or morality and logic, which is what we are discussing.

Ultimately though, bringing up such rare cases shows that abortion is not justifiable...

It is when you claim abortion is a "Get out of jail" free card, so to speak. Utter nonsense.

I mean, consider what you are saying. Sure, in SOME respects, it allows you to avoid a particularly damning and draining responsibility, but at what cost? A hefty financial burden and having to undergo a process that could be quite uncomfortable? That does not at all seem like getting out of something "for free". That's still, in some sense, taking responsibility.

Still though, the law recognizes their accountability in the process. They, by choosing to create life, lose their bodily sovereignty...

What? No they don't. Being required to pay child support, while an arguable injustice, is not a violation of bodily sovereignty. Where are you getting this? Do you understand what bodily sovereignty is?

and are required to work or be imprisoned to support the children.

Which as we have already agreed, is an injustice. And your solution is to...create an even greater injustice by spreading this to women? What a brilliant solution!

/sarcasm

I argue that reasoning should apply equally to both sides.

I agree! We should apply the reasoning we use for women, to men. Freedom for both sides!

Oh wait, you want it the other why around? Oppression for both sides?

...why?

It's not self-defense, the child isn't attacking the mother.

It doesn't have to be. You may not be attacking me when I force you out of my house, but it's still an act of self-defense, because you are violating a right of mine. Self-defense does not require attacking; it requires a violation. The fetus is not attacking the mother, however, it is violating her, by refusing to leave one she chooses she no longer wishes to support it. It has no right to her womb, just like you have no right to my house, and must leave when she wants it gone. And if it doesn't, just like if you refused to leave my house, she can have someone else remove it forcibly.

She chooses to create the life unless rape has occurred

Nope. She chooses to create life when she tries to get pregnant. And even then, that may not result in new life. She may not get pregnant, or the pregnancy could fail at some point.

Any other situation however, is not her "choosing" to create life; it's an accident. An unwanted result. That's not choosing it. That's having it foisted upon her.
Forums Home > Politics

On the Rights of the UnbornPosted 7 years Ago

At 5/28/2013 2:44:06 AM, Jzyehoshua wrote:
When you choose to create another life you give up some of that sovereignty in choosing to create said life.

Nope. Bodily sovereignty means complete ownership and control of your body. I can choose to allow you access to my body, but that is still an act of my bodily sovereignty. Likewise, when I choose to allow a fetus inside of me, that is not me "giving up" my bodily sovereignty; quite the opposite. It is me using that sovereignty, in allowing something to share my body with me.

But like coming into my home, I can choose to tell it to get out of my womb whenever I wish. And if it doesn't, I get to have it removed by any means necessary, in self-defense.

Again, we recognize men should be held accountable with child support payments. Therefore, it holds true that women should likewise be held accountable as well.

Or how about men not be held accountable either? Seems much more fair to me.

Furthermore, bodily sovereignty like any other right is no excuse for harming the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness belonging to others.

Yes, it is. It's in the name. Bodily SOVEREIGNTY. It means that it supersedes even your right to life. Your right to life is not more important than my right to ownership of my body. Hence why you cannot use my body against my will, even if not doing so could mean you die. Hence why if you violate my bodily sovereignty, I can defend myself by any means necessary, even if that means killing you.

Come on. This is basic logic here,.

You have a right to your body but not to use that body to punch someone on the street, to rape, murder, or steal using it.

Of course. Because those acts are a violation of bodily sovereignty. Thank you for proving my point. The needs and desires of one person's body does not override another's bodily sovereignty.

Logically, rights should not include the right to harm another's inalienable rights.

Not necessarily, no. Again, say someone attempts to rape me. I have every right to defend myself from them. Even if that results in their death. Once my bodily sovereignty has bene violated, I have every right to override their right to life, if it comes down to that.

Your right to throw a punch should stop where another's nose begins.

Unless you threw the first punch. Then I have every right to defend myself.

Again, this is basic logic. How do you not get this?

Ultimately however, I am not even arguing for stopping abortion altogether, merely putting it to vote by ballot referendum, which logically will result in abortion being more restrictive, so that it is allowed only until 12 weeks or so.

Abortion must be allowed whenever, as to not do so would be in violation of a woman's bodily sovereignty.
Forums Home > Politics

On the Rights of the UnbornPosted 7 years Ago

At 5/28/2013 2:36:31 AM, Jzyehoshua wrote:
That seems like a nonsensical argument because a woman chooses to initiate childbirth through participating in sexual activity.

That's not true. A woman who becomes pregnant from sex did not necessarily choose that pregnancy, in the same way that a rock climber who falls and break their back, did not necessarily "choose" to fall and break their back. They may have understood that risk, sure. But that doesn't mean they wanted it to happen, and that doesn't mean we shouldn't help them.

Beyond that however, it doesn't matter whether she wanted the pregnancy or not; bodily sovereignty is only bodily sovereignty if she can revoke that at any time. If I, for instance, allow you to come into my home, just because I've allowed you in, doesn't give you permission to stay once I want you to leave. In the same way, even if I allow the fetus into my body, that doesn't mean it can stay if I choose later to want it gone. It does not have a right to my body.

We hold those who sign contracts accountable to the letter of the law, why should the decision to create life be any different?

We also allow, under some circumstances, for people to leave contracts they've agreed to. Why should the decision to create life be any different?

Abortion is essentially a get-out-of-responsibility-free card, killing the child to avoid the responsibility, consequences, and commitments that should accompany lifestyle choices.

Not inherently. Sure, it can be used for that, but it can also be used for a number of other reasons. Complications that could arise from the pregnancy and/or birth that could harm the mother, incapability in raising the child, avoidance of further psychological pain (in the case of pregnancies resulting from rape) are all other reasons why people get abortions

Ultimately we hold men responsible for causing pregnancy by requiring child support payments, why should men be held responsible for their decisions but not women?

That is another issue entirely. for the record, I don't think men should be held accountable, just because they get a woman pregnant.

A child does not attack or initiate an assault on the mother, making that argument is just silly.

Not at all. The mother wants the fetus gone, and the fetus does not leave. It is now violating her bodily sovereignty, making any attempt to remove it self-defense. It's comparable to, say, myself being in need of an organ. Say I have an ailing liver, and you are a suitable donor. You may at first agree to give me one of your liver, but that does not mean suddenly you are forced to give it to me. You have every right to change your mind, even if changing your mind condemns me to death. And I have no right to force you to give it to me, to your detriment, for my benefit. That would violate your bodily sovereignty. Your bodily sovereignty overrides my right to life, simple as that. And so does the mother's with the fetus. It has no right to her body, and she can choose to revoke permission to use her body, whenever she chooses, even if that would condemn the fetus to death.
Forums Home > Politics

On the Rights of the UnbornPosted 7 years Ago

At 5/28/2013 2:25:58 AM, Jzyehoshua wrote:
The privacy argument just does not make any sense.

I don't know what privacy argument you're talking about, but that's not really the issue; the issue is bodily sovereignty. If you are opposed to bodily sovereignty, please do tell. But if you support it, you must necessarily support abortion, as bodily sovereignty necessarily overrides any creature's right to life.
Forums Home > Politics

On the Rights of the UnbornPosted 7 years Ago

At 5/28/2013 1:54:58 AM, Jzyehoshua wrote:
Ultimately, right to privacy is no justification for killing another human being, whether in the privacy of one's own home or own body.

Thankfully, that's not the argument being put forth.

...and right to one's body cannot justify using that body to harm another person.

Sure it can. Example: A rapist attempts to rape you. In your defense, you wound and/or kill them. Bodily sovereignty overrides their right to life, as it always does.

The rest of your post needs not to be addressed, because it fails at this central premise. Bodily sovereignty DOES justify harm to another person, in self-defense. And that is precisely what abortion is. Self-defense.
Forums Home > Politics

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.