Bodily Autonomy

Author: Danielle

Posts

Total: 329
#211
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
I believe weaponizing rights is exactly what you are doing. After all, the right to not be killed is the most basic right a human can have...
what if, the unborn child was not directly damaged, and instead, the umbilical cord was clamped

the umbilical cord is part of the mother's body

and the nutrients flowing through that cord are owned by the mother

it would be like refusing to feed a guest that has overstayed their welcome
#212
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Bones
If I were in the mountains and there was a blizzard and I am the only one who owns a house within 10 miles and you come straggling to my door, yes I would say that I ought allow you to come in. 
would it make a difference if there were two houses ?
#213
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
Someone's property being used and the inconvenience that comes with that is a small price to pay for not taking a human life.
so, do you agree that we should provide food and shelter and medical care for all homeless people ?
#214
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@3RU7AL
If I were in the mountains and there was a blizzard and I am the only one who owns a house within 10 miles and you come straggling to my door, yes I would say that I ought allow you to come in. 
would it make a difference if there were two houses ?
Yup if there were a different house the person could go to, then the obligation is lessened. However, if the person is dependent i.e they have serious cognitive dissonance, it would be immoral to force him to the other house where he will inevitably die.  
#215
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,834
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Bones
Too bad you got unlucky, no one forced you into the room.  
Just say not to sex is your lame answer and creates  a crime of sexual passion scenario i.e. become pregnant, ---and only the woman---   so you must serve punishment of 9 months of pregnancy, have the child and the figure out what you want to do;

.......1} add another unwanted child to planet Earths already overpopulation  ---its ok cause it is Gods plan? give us a break-----,

........2} accept child as your own, even if you hate the child from get go,

.........3} place child for adoption and hope the child gets lucky and is not lost in institutionalized system the rest of their lives.

What we have here is partriarchal biiblical  based, fundamentlist thinking from dark middle ages,  alive and well in year 2022. Sad :--(

 
#216
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Bones
Yup if there were a different house the person could go to, then the obligation is lessened. However, if the person is dependent i.e they have serious cognitive dissonance, it would be immoral to force him to the other house where he will inevitably die.  
so, basically, if there were 100 houses, everyone could refuse and nobody would be responsible
#217
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Danielle
This thread took a turn lol
it's funny how a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to self-ownership relates to EVERY SINGLE ASPECT OF LAW
Topic's author
#218
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Bones
If I were in the mountains and there was a blizzard and I am the only one who owns a house within 10 miles and you come straggling to my door, yes I would say that I ought allow you to come in. 
Just because you feel you ought to do something does not mean that person has a RIGHT to be in someone else's home against their will. 

As far as your thought experiment, it's really not a good point at all. I'll explain why later if he doesn't. 
Topic's author
#219
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
Oh really? When was the 1st time the left drafted an abortion bill? 

I believe the first one was passed in 1967. Not sure when the first one was drafted.


What makes you think they won't do it when they lose the majority and can't leverage it as a wedge issue anymore?
They have tried and will continue to try to pass bills. What makes you think they will be able to pass one successfully as a minority when they can't even pass one now with the majority? 


I agree only the left will be able to present this legislation. What would you do to convince them to do it?

Who do you think is strong enough on the left to form a bi-partisan coalition?

Bruh the House already passed a bill. Every single Republican voted against it and one Democrat voted against it. The bill failed in the Senate, once again with every single Republican and one Democrat voting against it. It will fail again. You need 60 votes to pass and they can't even get 50. What part of Republican politicians do not care what voters think on abortion don't you understand? Good grief.


Topic's author
#220
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
What's interesting is that the Senate will likely fail to pass a bill that prohibits states from interfering with a woman's right to travel to obtain an abortion. Now that's (psychotic)  a constitutional issue... but again the Senators do not care.

And quite frankly I have no faith at all whatsoever that the conservative justices would uphold our right to travel across state lines. They would probably say some bullshit like “they aren’t prohibited from leaving the state in violation of the Commerce Clause; they’re just being prevented from being able to do illegal things in their state” or some other ridiculous shit that they will ignore in other cases. Ugh. The SCOTUS has too many religious nut jobs who think they’re going God’s will with these mental gymnastics to criminalize abortion. 

The ONLY hope of a secure right to abortion via amendment or bill is Dems winning the presidency, House and Senate in 2024 (with them potentially overturning the filibuster a few years down the line) which I don’t see happening at all. 
#221
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Danielle
fail to pass a bill that prohibits states from interfering with a woman's right to travel to obtain an abortion
this is the same issue as trying to prevent people from traveling to obtain an interracial marriage

it's a very simple matter of JURISDICTION
#222
DebateAllDaTings
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 78
0
1
2
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
DebateAllDaTings
0
1
2
-->
@3RU7AL
***It is really annoying you responded to me in multiple comments, just respond in one***

"an induced miscarriage (home abortion) and a "natural" miscarriage are indistinguishable without an autopsy and a police investigation"

They are not indistinguishable at all, simple blood tests and scans can determine the cause of the miscarriage.

"it would be like refusing to feed a guest that has overstayed their welcome"

False. Refusing to take action is not the same as taking an action. Abortion is an act in it's own right, it takes instruments, and doctors poking around. It is not a refraining from an action like *not* donating my liver. Thus, this analogy fails. There is a difference between not feeding you, and slicing your throat.


#223
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
"an induced miscarriage (home abortion) and a "natural" miscarriage are indistinguishable without an autopsy and a police investigation"

They are not indistinguishable at all, simple blood tests and scans can determine the cause of the miscarriage.
they are indistinguishable without MANDATORY "tests and scans" (for all miscarriages, including unreported miscarriages) AND some investigation to determine MOTIVE
#224
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
There is a difference between not feeding you, and slicing your throat.
not really any MATERIAL difference if both result in THE DEATH OF A PRECIOUS HUMAN LIFE
#225
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,419
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
The genetic DNA similarity between pigs and human beings is 98%. Interspecies organ transplant activities between humans and pigs have even taken place, called xenotransplants. Should we really be killing baby pigs?
#226
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@FLRW
The genetic DNA similarity between pigs and human beings is 98%. Interspecies organ transplant activities between humans and pigs have even taken place, called xenotransplants. Should we really be killing baby pigs?
killing a baby pig is 98% MURDER
#227
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,834
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Intelligence_06
@Bones
We should all agree on that before 22 weeks where the fetus can survive outside the womb, it should be legal and it should not be comparable with murder. Outlawing anything after that is understandable, but before 22 weeks it sounds absurd.

What is absurd is your removing the pregnant woman and an organism of hers out of the equation.  Duhh! Get over it already intel6, the fetus/baby organism does not belong to you, to bones, to federal or state government nor Supreme court. Go that point yet???????

You are absurd and a perverted virtual rapist for making such statements.
bones....I would say most agree, which is why the fetus too ought have the bodily rights not to be killed. 
Duhh, you choose to remain ignorant and a perverted virtual rapist of pregnant women. Sick-n-head.

And this all stems from patriarchal biblical basis of fundamentalism straight out of dark middle ages, when men ---and women--- then and now in 20222 are clueless to what is morally and scientifically the correct paths to follow.

Get you friggin nose out of a pregnant womans business, unless she gives her consent for others to stick their noses in their. Understand this simple statement yet? No? I didnt think so. Fundamentlist BS in 2022. And does any wonder why my original end-date-for humanity was 2015 and now 2232.



#228
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,626
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
"Make no mistake, it is not Roe v. Wade codification," he said of the Women's Health Protection Act. "It is an expansion. It wipes 500 state laws off the books, it expands abortion, and with that, that's not where we are today. We should not be dividing this country further than we're already divided, and it's really the politics of Congress that's dividing the country."

-Manchin

Asked last week why he is not considering the GOP senators' proposal, Schumer told reporters Democrats "are not looking to compromise on something as vital as this."

What the left needs is strong leadership that can tell the fringe left of their party to fuck off so they can pass a bi-partisan bill. Americans need a bi-partisan bill. not the usual fringe BS. If they don't make sensible legislation, it's proof they simply want a wedge issue instead of a solution with bi-partisan support.

Something like this needs to be co-authored by both parties. What leadership in either party do you think will step up and do this?
#229
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,834
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
Something like this needs to be co-authored by both parties. What leadership in either party do you think will step up and do this?
Someone who plays politics with truth ergo a false narrative expert. Oh yeah the Orange-Talking Head-Trumpet.

Who will turn his head around to most politically populist view, and get us out from under patriarchal, biblical based, fundamentlistic, dark middle ages ways of thought??

Lets start with,  a woman, man, or hermaphrodite?    Or maybe for Trumpet it will be an AI treety bird....tweet tweet, all day long, rockin robin...sung to M. Jackson and Jackson 5 tune



Topic's author
#230
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
And if Manchin votes with Democrats on abortion, congratulations they have 50 votes. They need 60. 


 What leadership in either party do you think will step up and do this?
Again, no Republicans will do it. 
#231
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@FLRW
The genetic DNA similarity between pigs and human beings is 98%. Interspecies organ transplant activities between humans and pigs have even taken place, called xenotransplants. Should we really be killing baby pigs?
killing adult pigs is a-ok, because, obviously, THEY DESERVE IT
#232
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,626
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
Again, no Republicans will do it. 
Do what, author a bipartisan bill instead of a partisan bill?

Why do you think Schumer felt the need to say he wouldn't compromise on the bill even though that ensured it would not pass?

 What leadership in either party do you think will step up and do this? Author a bi-partisan bill instead of the usual far-extreme wing BULLSHIT.
#233
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
Why do you think Schumer felt the need to say he wouldn't compromise on the bill even though that ensured it would not pass?
BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT EVEN SLIGHTLY INTERESTED IN FIXING ANYTHING

they're only interested in trying to look like they're trying to fix something

for example, the democrats are contributing millions of dollars to far-right republicans (not a joke)
#234
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@3RU7AL
@FLRW
Unless you are suggesting we legally mandate veganism, please stop the moral grandstanding, it seems pathetic to an onlooker and only makes the pro-choice side seem intentionally hypocritical.

If you are not for legally mandated veganism, I can only assume you wish to legalise murder and cannibalism. That is the only coherent alternative to the consistency between ypue views, that I can fathom other than nitpicking vegetarianism vs veganism.
#235
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
Unless you are suggesting we legally mandate veganism,
please present your logically-coherent moral framework
#236
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,419
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@RationalMadman

Touche'
#237
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@3RU7AL
Emotions and subjectivity are integral to morality, if you are asking why I am not a psychopath, the core answer is entirely subjective and to do with how plagued with shame and regret I'd feel (more so than guilt, self-loathing) if I kept operating in a way that makes me feel I am a scumbag, deep down.

I find that the more the internal foundation of a moral framework is based on ideas, the more the outside if logically incoherent and fragile, leading to a person being impossible to reason with or adapt to a situation and rethink the net-good vs net-evil equation of their aciton and inaction. In contrast, the more the internal foundation is simply based on empathy and care, the more the logic built upon and around that is able to accurately use the inner compass to guide through a complex world.

In other words, there is a lot of logic to my own morality but the foundation is as simple as feelings and subjective empathy.
#238
DebateAllDaTings
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 78
0
1
2
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
DebateAllDaTings
0
1
2
-->
@3RU7AL
***I asked you to respond with one comment and one comment only, so please do that it is getting annoying***

"they are indistinguishable without MANDATORY "tests and scans" (for all miscarriages, including unreported miscarriages) AND some investigation to determine MOTIVE"

That makes no sense, if it is unreported how could anyone know about it? 

"not really any MATERIAL difference if both result in THE DEATH OF A PRECIOUS HUMAN LIFE"

Just because the end result is the same doesn't mean the path is the same, that is an absurd argument.

Should you be locked up because you didn't donate your liver to someone? No. You should be locked up if you push someone into a woodchipper.

The path to a result matters when determining criminality. 
#239
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
In other words, there is a lot of logic to my own morality but the foundation is as simple as feelings and subjective empathy.
great answer

how do you propose we moderate conflicts (and shape policy) when two or more people disagree about how they personally feel about a particular situation ?
#240
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
***I asked you to respond with one comment and one comment only, so please do that it is getting annoying***
this is a purely voluntary interaction

respond to what you wish to respond to and don't respond to what you don't wish to respond to