No matter if you are pro-choice or pro-life, you're going to have to bite the bullet

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 70
Topic's author
#1
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
If your pro choice and believe a zygote is a human being, you believe bodily autonomy outweighs the right to life.  Pro choice people tend to be democrats who believe that the right to life outweighs fiscal autonomy (the right to not fiscally sacrifice for someone else).  By the law of transitivity, if A>B (Bodily autonomy > right to life), and B>C (Bodily autonomy > Fiscal autonomy), then you would believe A>C (Bodily autonomy > Fiscal autonomy).

Consider the following question: Is it okay to be addicted to meth, heroin, or some hard drug if it leads to you stealing from other people to maintain your drug addiction?  If you believe that Bodily autonomy > Fiscal autonomy, then you would have to believe that it's okay to be addicted to meth even if you must steal from people in the name of your bodily autonomy to be happy.

But lets be real; no normal person is okay with people being addicted to hard drugs if it means that the addict robs people to get high.  So since this is a contradiction, I can't call myself pro choice.

If your pro life, you believe that the right to life outweighs the right to bodily autonomy (not in ALL cases, but in the specific case of what a parent has to provide their child).

Consider the following scenario: Lets say your a parent with 2 working kidneys and your 8 year old son needs a kidney transplant to survive.  Pretty much any parent that isn't a deadbeat would agree to give their child a kidney.  However, should you as a parent be OBLIGATED to give your kidney to save the life of your 8 year old son (when everyone believes an 8 year old son is at least as valuable as a fetus, and I also think everyone would agree that giving your kidney to save a life is less of a sacrifice than to be pregnant for 9 months to save a life)?  If you believe a parent must do whatever is needed to save their child's life under the pro life ethic, you would have to answer yes to that question.

No matter if your pro choice or pro life, your going to have to bite the bullet.  This is why I am strictly neutral on the abortion issue.
#2
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 354
Posts: 10,516
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
When people talk of bodily autonomy, the concept is that a person has a right to do whatever she wants with own body. If fetus also has bodily autonomy, which it must have, it gets a little more complicated. Fetus is located in woman's body. Therefore, woman, being the owner of her body, has a right to remove fetus from her body.

The main argument of Pro-choice is: "Do not decrease autonomy",

Where main argument of Pro-life is: "Do not decrease life", or in the more extreme case: "Do that which increases life the most".

if A>B (Bodily autonomy > right to life), and B>C (Bodily autonomy > Fiscal autonomy), then you would believe A>C (Bodily autonomy > Fiscal autonomy).

"if A>B (Bodily autonomy > right to life), and B>C (right to life> Fiscal autonomy), then you would believe A>C (Bodily autonomy > Fiscal autonomy)."

Is it okay to be addicted to meth, heroin, or some hard drug if it leads to you stealing from other people to maintain your drug addiction?
Well, no, of course not. However, I see your point that fiscal autonomy may be violated to uphold bodily autonomy. However, one must understand that theft would likely violate bodily autonomy of the person money is stolen from. For example, if that person is poor or barely surviving, stealing money from that person would likely cause that person to starve or be forced to beg for help from others. Now, if the person is terribly rich, then missing a few dollars wont be a problem. So yeah, the moral problem exists as to who gets to decide what decreases bodily autonomy.

Consider the following scenario: Lets say your a parent with 2 working kidneys and your 8 year old son needs a kidney transplant to survive.  Pretty much any parent that isn't a deadbeat would agree to give their child a kidney.  However, should you as a parent be OBLIGATED to give your kidney to save the life of your 8 year old son (when everyone believes an 8 year old son is at least as valuable as a fetus, and I also think everyone would agree that giving your kidney to save a life is less of a sacrifice than to be pregnant for 9 months to save a life)?  If you believe a parent must do whatever is needed to save their child's life under the pro life ethic, you would have to answer yes to that question.
This largely depends on if your stance is "Do not decrease life" or "You must do that which increases life".

In case of "Do not decrease life", you are not decreasing life by not donating a kidney. "Not donating a kidney" is not an action. It is a lack of action. Person can be blamed for what he does, but cannot be blamed for that which he doesnt do. It is not your fault that someone needs a kidney. It is not your action that causes someone to die due to not having a kidney. If it is your own child, then you gave a life to that child. Your action didnt decrease life. If your child needs a kidney, that is not your fault. "Not giving kidney" is not an action. Therefore, your actions didnt decrease life.

The main problem with this moral system is that it says how if you saw a drowning child, you wouldnt have an obligation to save that child, since you cannot be blamed for a lack of action.
#3
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 354
Posts: 10,516
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
Forgot to tag you.
#4
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,004
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
U guys r forgetting that if a woman gets pregnant she assumed the risk of pregnancy. If it's anyone's fault she's pregnant, it's hers. And, as time goes on with pregnancy, she assumes the obligation of aborting sooner than later, while the morality is more debatable. 
#5
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@n8nrgim
U guys r forgetting that if a woman gets pregnant she assumed the risk of pregnancy. If it's anyone's fault she's pregnant, it's hers.
and? Is that relevant? If you get got sick because of something you did, would that be a relevant factor in treating you or something? Whose fault it is has no bearing on a person's bodily autonomy. 

And, as time goes on with pregnancy, she assumes the obligation of aborting sooner than later, while the morality is more debatable. 
I mean, while sooner is better than later, when right wing people say that (I am not presuming that describes you) they usually mean so early that most women don't even know they are pregnant yet. Many laws intended to restrict access to abortion are designed to be so restrictive as to make it virtually impossible for someone to be able to legally access an abortion. The truth is it takes awhile to even notice the symptoms, and then it can take even longer to confirm you are pregnant and be able to schedule the procedure. 
#6
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,207
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheUnderdog
Is it okay to be addicted to meth, heroin, or some hard drug if it leads to you stealing from other people to maintain your drug addiction?  If you believe that Bodily autonomy > Fiscal autonomy, then you would have to believe that it's okay to be addicted to meth even if you must steal from people in the name of your bodily autonomy to be happy.
There is no necessary connection between meth addiction and stealing, so your formula is invalid at the outset. One could easily be addicted to meth while having the means to pay for it or be addicted while being unwilling or unable to steal from those around them.

Moreover, you’re also disregarding the right to one’s own property in the equation. No right is absolute, particularly when it clashes with the rights of others. So even if  meth necessarily leads to theft then that would be a perfectly valid reason to take away that right. There’s no contradiction there.
#7
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@TheUnderdog
If your pro choice and believe a zygote is a human being, you believe bodily autonomy outweighs the right to life.
There is a third option: there is a natural hierarchy between woman and zygote which requires no choices or beliefs. The life of the zygote is secondary to the life of the body sustaining its life. This is a biological fact. That being the case, a zygote's right to life cannot take priority to the life (and rights attached to that life) required for it's existence. 
#8
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,004
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@HistoryBuff
a better analogy would be if someone causes an accident, and the victim to the accident is somehow dependent for life upon the body of the person who caused the accident. i would say the person who caused the accident doesn't have bodily autonomy to let the victim die... in fact, the trangressor must let the person live up to and including the transgressor's death, if necessary.

another example, if a criminal stabs someone in their organ, and the victim needs a replacement organ, i say the criminal is responsible to provide it. 

i know some people are absolutely on the right of bodily autonomy even for criminals who cause dependency, but that just ain't fair in my mind. 
#9
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,802
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@SkepticalOne
a zygote's right to life cannot take priority to the life (and rights attached to that life) required for it's existence. 
The termination of a pregnancy at any stage will always mean one of 3 things. 

1) a live birth.
2) a dead birth.
3) A dead fetus in a dead woman.

Terminating a pregnancy to save a mother almost NEVER requires option 2, yet it's the main reason cited for morality to cover the 99+% of cases outside of that unique situation.

Evolutionarily speaking, any species that does not sacrifice the welfare of the parent to ensure its offspring prospers is doomed for extinction; as the laws of fit survival can never be waived in this world of entropy. It's one of the reasons why child sacrifice societies are no longer around.

This is the natural hierarchy between woman and zygote which requires no choices or beliefs. Your hierarchy describes an extinct species.
#10
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@TheUnderdog
Fiscal autonomy? Fiscal? Fiscal!?! 🤦‍♂️

The drug analogy is a false equivalency to the abortion discussion. Same with the organ obligation analogy. Irrelevant. 

A pregnancy has zero legal rights! It has no rights of any kind that supersede that of the girl/woman it’s within. 

Abortion boils down to pro choice = empathy and pro life = dispatched selfishness. Both are emotive based arguments but only one is logically sound. 



#11
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Greyparrot
This is the natural hierarchy between woman and zygote which requires no choices or beliefs. Your hierarchy describes an extinct species.
I've not suggested the life of a zygote should always be extinguished, only that it is secondary to the life that sustains it. You are arguing against a position which I have not represented. 
#12
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@TheUnderdog
If your pro choice and believe a zygote is a human being, you believe bodily autonomy outweighs the right to life.
No, it simply means that one believes that one human being does not bear the right to compel and coerce the service and/or labor of another.

Pro choice people tend to be democrats
Luckily for me, I am not a Democrat.

who believe that the right to life outweighs fiscal autonomy (the right to not fiscally sacrifice for someone else).
Even if the concern about money, one's financial does not qualify one's right to bodily autonomy.

By the law of transitivity, if A>B (Bodily autonomy > right to life), and B>C (Bodily autonomy > Fiscal autonomy), then you would believe A>C (Bodily autonomy > Fiscal autonomy).
What?! So both A & B represent Bodily Autonomy?

Consider the following question: Is it okay to be addicted to meth, heroin, or some hard drug if it leads to you stealing from other people to maintain your drug addiction?  If you believe that Bodily autonomy > Fiscal autonomy, then you would have to believe that it's okay to be addicted to meth even if you must steal from people in the name of your bodily autonomy to be happy.
No. THIEVERY =/= FISCAL AUTONOMY.

But lets be real; no normal person is okay with people being addicted to hard drugs if it means that the addict robs people to get high.  So since this is a contradiction, I can't call myself pro choice.
Your premises are substantially inadequate, and you've created a false equivalence, i.e. ROBBERY = FISCAL AUTONOMY.

If your pro life, you believe that the right to life outweighs the right to bodily autonomy (not in ALL cases, but in the specific case of what a parent has to provide their child).
Why has your description of "pro-life" allowed for a modifier which qualifies the position on a case by case basis?

Consider the following scenario: Lets say your a parent with 2 working kidneys and your 8 year old son needs a kidney transplant to survive.  Pretty much any parent that isn't a deadbeat would agree to give their child a kidney.  However, should you as a parent be OBLIGATED to give your kidney to save the life of your 8 year old son (when everyone believes an 8 year old son is at least as valuable as a fetus, and I also think everyone would agree that giving your kidney to save a life is less of a sacrifice than to be pregnant for 9 months to save a life)?  If you believe a parent must do whatever is needed to save their child's life under the pro life ethic, you would have to answer yes to that question.
Yes, and this is the reason I believe that the pro-life position, at least here in the United States, is more consistent that that of the pro-choice.

No matter if your pro choice or pro life, your going to have to bite the bullet.  This is why I am strictly neutral on the abortion issue.
Please elaborate.
#13
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@n8nrgim
a better analogy would be if someone causes an accident, and the victim to the accident is somehow dependent for life upon the body of the person who caused the accident
that is a terrible analogy since there is no 2nd person. There is a fetus. That is not a person. You are saying that if someone makes a mistake, they must lose their legal right to control their own body. Do you really want the government to have that power?

another example, if a criminal stabs someone in their organ, and the victim needs a replacement organ, i say the criminal is responsible to provide it. 
so basically, you are in favor of invasive surgery, likely causing death if you injure someone. That is insane. 

i know some people are absolutely on the right of bodily autonomy even for criminals who cause dependency, but that just ain't fair in my mind. 
basically, you don't care about people's rights. You want the government to step on them the moment you think you are morally justified. What about when other people think they are morally justified? If the government has the power to take any and all of your rights, it won't only be used just when you want it to be. If you are going to suspend people's rights, you need to be extremely careful when and how it is done. And your position is that there should be very little justification needed to do so. 
#14
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,004
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@HistoryBuff
the issue of whether it's a human is its own issue, if it's clearly not a human then of course the woman's autonomy is highest. but if it's a human, then the woman's autonomy in my opinion is on the same level as the baby. for me, i am willing to admit it's a gray area earlier in the pregnancy, but as time goes on, the fact that she assumed the risk of pregnancy comes into play. also comes into play how soon she chooses to abort. 

i agree with you that society would call i barbaric to steal a criminals organs if they were responsible for the victim needing organs, but morality is too subjective for your argument hold up to me. what's fair is fair... if you cause someone to need an organ, and you have the organ, it's only fair. i concede by social standards my position is insane, but i think your position is insane that you would let a victim die at the hands of a criminal when the criminal could fix the situation. 

i dont know why you could try to pigeon hole me into thinking i dont care about people's rights. of course i do. at least give me the credit that i think the baby has rights at a certain point. so, if anyone is heartless, it is you, because you are not trying to find a common ground between the baby and the mother. i wouldn't even be surprised if you think a woman has complete right all throughout her pregnancy even late term to abort at will. that would be a heartless, insane, and also i might stress a radical position. 

if you concede that the baby's rights eventually come into play, then we're just talking past each other, and all my arguments you could make for the point where you would limit abortion. all your arguments i could make for when when i would permit abortion. 
#15
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@n8nrgim
the issue of whether it's a human is its own issue, if it's clearly not a human then of course the woman's autonomy is highest. but if it's a human, then the woman's autonomy in my opinion is on the same level as the baby.
I never said it wasn't human. I said it wasn't a person. Technically a cancerous tumor is still human. 

 but as time goes on, the fact that she assumed the risk of pregnancy comes into play. also comes into play how soon she chooses to abort. 
this is true. At a certain point a fetus is far enough along that you shouldn't allow an abortion unless there are extreme circumstances. For example, the day before the due date is obviously too late for an abortion to be OK. Where exactly the line is, I don't pretend to know the right answer. But many of the states passing "heartbeat" laws and things like that, the date they choose is often before the woman even knows she is pregnant, or so soon after there is no reasonable way she could get an abortion that fast. 

what's fair is fair... if you cause someone to need an organ, and you have the organ, it's only fair.
that does not sound fair to me. That sounds like the kind of "justice" they used back in the times of the old testament. I'd like to think we have moved beyond an eye for an eye. 

i concede by social standards my position is insane, but i think your position is insane that you would let a victim die at the hands of a criminal when the criminal could fix the situation. 
Murdering one person to save another is not just. It is not moral. The death penalty in general is barbaric and pointless. 

i dont know why you could try to pigeon hole me into thinking i dont care about people's rights. of course i do. at least give me the credit that i think the baby has rights at a certain point. so, if anyone is heartless, it is you, because you are not trying to find a common ground between the baby and the mother. 
of course I want common ground. Aborting the day before the due date is obviously wrong. Expecting a woman to carry a fetus to term from the moment she gets pregnant is also obviously wrong. There is a middle ground. But your argument was basically a woman should lose her rights because she got pregnant. That is a morally repugnant stance. And one which, if extended, means the government could do almost anything to anyone. 

if you concede that the baby's rights eventually come into play, then we're just talking past each other
so if I am literally anyone, we are talking past each other? I haven't heard of anyone who thinks an abortion is ok the day before the due date (except in cases where the mother could die or something). That isn't an opinion that almost anyone has. So I don't know why you would suggest that baby's rights don't eventually come into play. But basically every law that I have ever heard of attempting to restrict abortion is basically designed to make them impossible to get. They don't want to find common ground, they want to make it impossible for anyone to have one. 
#16
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@HistoryBuff
I never said it wasn't human. I said it wasn't a person. Technically a cancerous tumor is still human. 
Except, it's not a cancerous tumor. And the subject of personhood is made all the more moot (and frankly absurd) when a State CAN GRANT A BODY OF WATER PERSONHOOD.

#17
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Athias
Except, it's not a cancerous tumor. And the subject of personhood is made all the more moot (and frankly absurd) when a State CAN GRANT A BODY OF WATER PERSONHOOD.
I don't think that makes it moot. Legal personhood is a complicated subject. And yes, inanimate objects can be a legal person. Deciding what is and what isn't a person is always a difficult question to answer. Saying that because a question is difficult and sometimes comes to strange answers makes the whole concept absurd and moot, is a bit silly.
Topic's author
#18
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Double_R
There is no necessary connection between meth addiction and stealing
Drug addicts are more likely to steal to pay for their drug addiction.

So even if  meth necessarily leads to theft then that would be a perfectly valid reason to take away that right.
So you believe that it's okay to take away the right to smoke meth in order to protect fiscal autonomy.  This means you think (in this context) that fiscal autonomy > bodily autonomy.  But since you are a socialist, this means you think the right to life > fiscal autonomy.  So this would mean that according to you, right to life > bodily autonomy.  So then you would be pro life.  But your pro choice, so that's a contradiction.
Topic's author
#19
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@TWS1405_2
Fiscal autonomy? Fiscal? Fiscal!?! 🤦‍♂️
Yes; fiscal autonomy matters; if you disagree, give all the money you don't need to survive to an anti child poverty organization.

The drug analogy is a false equivalency to the abortion discussion. Same with the organ obligation analogy. Irrelevant. 
How so?

A pregnancy has zero legal rights! It has no rights of any kind that supersede that of the girl/woman it’s within. 
In many states, an unborn baby has the right to live because abortion is banned in some US states.

Abortion boils down to pro choice = empathy and pro life = dispatched selfishness.
I have no idea how you came up with the conclusion that pro life advocates are selfish, even if you disagree with pro life ideology.
#20
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@HistoryBuff
I don't think that makes it moot. Legal personhood is a complicated subject. And yes, inanimate objects can be a legal person. Deciding what is and what isn't a person is always a difficult question to answer.
It's not complicated; it's whimsical and arbitrary. You can grant an inanimate object "person-hood" but not a human being at the first phase of its development? This demonstrates to me at the very least the concept of "person-hood" isn't based on any consistent principle.

Saying that because a question is difficult and sometimes comes to strange answers makes the whole concept absurd and moot, is a bit silly.
No, stating that a question, which is "difficult" and sometimes comes to a strange answer, is moot and absurd is actually quite rational and erudite when the conclusion being scrutinized is quite silly.
#21
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Athias
It's not complicated; it's whimsical and arbitrary. You can grant an inanimate object "person-hood" but not a human being at the first phase of its development?
I disagree. It isn't arbitrary. It is always based on something. No one has ever said, I want that tree to be a legal person and poof it was so. You might not agree with the logic or reasoning behind a determination, but it isn't arbitrary. 

his demonstrates to me at the very least the concept of "person-hood" isn't based on any consistent principle.
This is true. In different contexts a legal person doesn't always  mean the same thing. For example, corporations are legal persons in the eyes of the law, but they don't have "bodily autonomy". So the logic between the 2 is not consistent. But it still isn't arbitrary. 

No, stating that a question, which is "difficult" and sometimes comes to a strange answer, is moot and absurd is actually quite rational and erudite when the conclusion being scrutinized is quite silly.
what conclusion specifically are you scrutinizing and finding silly? A specific case of someone/something being a person? The entire concept of personhood? Are you saying that who is a person should be simple?
Topic's author
#22
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Athias
No, it simply means that one believes that one human being does not bear the right to compel and coerce the service and/or labor of another.
This is the same thing as saying that pro choice people believe bodily autonomy outweighs the right to life.

Even if the concern about money, one's financial does not qualify one's right to bodily autonomy.
No bodily sensation that is temporary is worth infinite dollars.

What?! So both A & B represent Bodily Autonomy?
This was a typo.  I meant to say:

By the law of transitivity, if A>B (Bodily autonomy > right to life), and B>C (Right to life > Fiscal autonomy), then you would believe A>C (Bodily autonomy > Fiscal autonomy).

THIEVERY =/= FISCAL AUTONOMY.
The right to have fiscal autonomy is the same as the right to not have your money stolen.

Why has your description of "pro-life" allowed for a modifier which qualifies the position on a case by case basis?
Because pro lifers argue that only a parent has the obligation to take care of their child.  If pro lifers believed that the right to life was absolute, they would believe in forced kidney donations are justified if it saves lives.  These aren't my beliefs; they are the beliefs of pro lifers.

Yes, and this is the reason I believe that the pro-life position, at least here in the United States, is more consistent that that of the pro-choice.
I think this position is biting the bullet.  Most pro lifers (when they aren't thinking about abortion) don't believe kidney donation should be FORCED to save the life of their biological child.

Please elaborate.
A pro lifer (who believes a child's life > bodily autonomy) would need to support forced kidney donation to save the life of their hypothetical 8 year old child.  I know if I had a kid that was like that, I wouldn't want to donate a kidney to save their life.  I can barely get through a blood prick, let alone an invasive surgery.

A pro choicer (who believes bodily autonomy > a child's life and if they are a democrat, would also believe that a child's life > fiscal autonomy) would believe that bodily autonomy > fiscal autonomy, which means that they would believe it's okay for a cocaine addict (who is broke due to their addiction) to steal from others to buy cocaine because their bodily autonomy > fiscal autonomy for other people.

If hypothetically, your ranking was fiscal autonomy > bodily autonomy > right to life (in the context of what a parent has to do for their child), then you would believe that not paying child support for your is totally okay even if your kid starves to death because by your logic, fiscal autonomy > right to life, even for your own child.


#23
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,207
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheUnderdog
There is no necessary connection between meth addiction and stealing
Drug addicts are more likely to steal to pay for their drug addiction.
Correlation is not causation

So you believe that it's okay to take away the right to smoke meth in order to protect fiscal autonomy.  This means you think (in this context) that fiscal autonomy > bodily autonomy.  But since you are a socialist, this means you think the right to life > fiscal autonomy.  So this would mean that according to you, right to life > bodily autonomy.  So then you would be pro life.  But your pro choice, so that's a contradiction.
Not sure who the “you” is in this sentence since none of this represents anything I have said or believe.

You are the one who necessarily tied meth use to theft, a premise I flatly reject, so everything that followed is a hypothetical aimed at pointing out that on principal there’s no contradiction.

Within that hypothetical I pointed out a basic principal; that one’s right’s end where another’s beings, typically expressed as “the freedom to swing your arms ends at someone else’s nose”. This basic idea would explain why if meth use necessarily lead to theft, that would be a valid reason to deny said right despite believing in one’s right to do what they wish with their own body.

I also have no idea where you got that I believe the right to life > fiscal autonomy.

You haven’t pointed out any actual contradiction.

Topic's author
#24
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@SkepticalOne
There is a third option: there is a natural hierarchy between woman and zygote which requires no choices or beliefs.
If you believe a zygote isn't a human being, a lot of people believe that, however, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36629778 claims that 96% of biologists disagree with you.  So your position is an anti-scientist position (just like anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers).

The life of the zygote is secondary to the life of the body sustaining its life.
This argument only works for abortion needed to save the mother's life; the vast majority of pregnancies aren't going to kill the mother.  Virtually nobody is against these types of abortions.
Topic's author
#25
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Double_R
Correlation is not causation
If the R value is pretty high, then it's not causation, and if people did drugs without ever going on welfare, then some would see it as okay.  A Columbia professor does heroin.  But he knows when to stop so he doesn't get addicted.  However, there are a lot of idiots out there that don't know when to stop, so they get addicted, they go broke, they become homeless, and then they steal for money.  Should they be allowed to steal money to maintain their bodily autonomy to smoke heroin?  If you say yes to this, your biting the bullet.  If you say no to this, then you believe that fiscal autonomy > bodily autonomy.  Since you also want high taxes to pay for socialist government services that save lives (I'm not knocking you for this), that means you would value right to life > fiscal autonomy.  So by the transitivity principle, you would believe that right to life > bodily autonomy (which means you would be pro life).

that one’s right’s end where another’s beings, typically expressed as “the freedom to swing your arms ends at someone else’s nose”

This goes both ways; it can be used to claim the right to bodily autonomy only goes so far as to protect the woman's right to bodily autonomy, or it can ALSO be used to say that the female's right to bodily autonomy only goes to the extent of making sure the unborn doesn't have their right to life infringed.

This basic idea would explain why if meth use necessarily lead to theft, that would be a valid reason to deny said right despite believing in one’s right to do what they wish with their own body.
Meth addicts are significantly more likely to steal from others than non meth addicts.  Do you dispute this?

If you don't, then you would deny the meth addict's right to bodily autonomy in the name of protecting other people's fiscal autonomy.

I also have no idea where you got that I believe the right to life > fiscal autonomy.
Isn't that why socialists support Medicare for all, free housing, and free food, all because they believe the right to life is more valuable than the right to fiscal autonomy?
#26
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@TheUnderdog
If you believe a zygote isn't a human being, a lot of people believe that,
I don't recall saying that in this thread. Could you provide a quote?

The life of the zygote is secondary to the life of the body sustaining its life.
This argument only works for abortion needed to save the mother's life
You misunderstand. I am pointing out that the dichotomy you've built between the rights isn't necessarily true. We don't need to have a discussion on rights to recognize the life of the mother is of primary importance. A [natural] pregnancy isn't going to succeed without a body to sustain it. 
#27
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@HistoryBuff
I disagree. It isn't arbitrary. It is always based on something. No one has ever said, I want that tree to be a legal person and poof it was so. You might not agree with the logic or reasoning behind a determination, but it isn't arbitrary. 
Nope, it's arbitrary. It's not necessarily a matter of my disagreeing with the reasoning. Granting personhood to an inanimate object is not consistent with the description of personhood. Its even less consistent when a zygote/embryo/fetus is not legally protected because they're not persons, but a "lake" can be.

So the logic between the 2 is not consistent. But it still isn't arbitrary. 
What is your preferred description of "arbitrary?"

what conclusion specifically are you scrutinizing and finding silly? A specific case of someone/something being a person? The entire concept of personhood? Are you saying that who is a person should be simple?
Honestly? I don't think personhood should even be considered. A pregnant woman has a right to behave her womb as she pleases whether the zygote/embryo/fetus is a person or not.


Topic's author
#28
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@SkepticalOne
 I don't recall saying that in this thread. Could you provide a quote?
Here's the quote:

 there is a natural hierarchy between woman and zygote which requires no choices or beliefs. 

We don't need to have a discussion on rights to recognize the life of the mother is of primary importance. 
The literal life of the mother is important; that's why abortion laws in every state I think allow abortion when the mother would die without one.

#29
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Athias
Nope, it's arbitrary. It's not necessarily a matter of my disagreeing with the reasoning. Granting personhood to an inanimate object is not consistent with the description of personhood. Its even less consistent when a zygote/embryo/fetus is not legally protected because they're not persons, but a "lake" can be.
you aren't actually describing something arbitrary though. You are just describing separate usages of the same term. 

What is your preferred description of "arbitrary?"
"based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system." And no one flipped a coin to decide if something is a person or not. They looked at the available information and requirements of a specific situation and decided based on that information if something/someone should be a legal person. That is not arbitrary. That is a series of decisions based on differing information and situation. 

Honestly? I don't think personhood should even be considered. A pregnant woman has a right to behave her womb as she pleases whether the zygote/embryo/fetus is a person or not.
I can understand your point, but legally it is an important distinction.  A person has certain rights and protections, a fetus does not. If you determine a fetus is a person, you cannot abort it (except in emergencies or something). 

Perhaps this is where the core of our disagreement is. I am using "person" in the legal sense. In law, a person can be a human, a company, a statue, a body of water etc. It does not mean the same thing as what a random person might mean when they say a "person". Being a person and being a human are not even really related in a legal sense. 

#30
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@TheUnderdog
This is the same thing as saying that pro choice people believe bodily autonomy outweighs the right to life.
If you're suffering from kidney failure, and refuse to donate my kidney, despite our being a match, have I infracted upon your "right to life" in my refusal?

No bodily sensation that is temporary is worth infinite dollars.
That is an estimation to be made by the rightful owner of the body.

By the law of transitivity, if A>B (Bodily autonomy > right to life), and B>C (Right to life > Fiscal autonomy), then you would believe A>C (Bodily autonomy > Fiscal autonomy).
Hence, I'm pro-choice all the way, even after the child is born. That is, a parent should not be coerced into sustaining a child--i.e. labor, resources, time, etc. This must be understood, that is rearing children, as  A GIFT not AN OBLIGATION.

The right to have fiscal autonomy is the same as the right to not have your money stolen.
O.K. So I misunderstood what you had meant by "fiscal autonomy." Let me rephrase:

BODILY AUTONOMY =/= RIGHT TO STEAL MONEY FOR DRUGS.

Because pro lifers argue that only a parent has the obligation to take care of their child.  If pro lifers believed that the right to life was absolute, they would believe in forced kidney donations are justified if it saves lives.  These aren't my beliefs; they are the beliefs of pro lifers.
Fair enough. I actually see the reasoning. That is if the parent is obligated to the child despite the undermining of the parents' bodily autonomy, then it would stand to reason that pro-lifers would not object (I don't think parents denying their children the use of their kidneys is prominent enough to warrant pro-life attention) to parents' being coerced to submit their kidneys if they can spare it to their child or children suffering from kidney failure.

I think this position is biting the bullet.  Most pro lifers (when they aren't thinking about abortion) don't believe kidney donation should be FORCED to save the life of their biological child.
Again, I don't think its prominent enough to warrant enough attention to subject it to public referendum. But it would be an interesting thought exercise if the issue ever did come up. But if any person who has conveyed through argumentation that a parent is obligated to the sustenance of their child from the point of the conception and that bodily autonomy is secondary to the child's "right to life" refuses to acknowledge that this reasoning would also endorse a parent's being coerced into providing a kidney in the event of a child's kidney failure, then you are right--that argument is inconsistent.

A pro lifer (who believes a child's life > bodily autonomy) would need to support forced kidney donation to save the life of their hypothetical 8 year old child.  I know if I had a kid that was like that, I wouldn't want to donate a kidney to save their life.  I can barely get through a blood prick, let alone an invasive surgery.

A pro choicer (who believes bodily autonomy > a child's life and if they are a democrat, would also believe that a child's life > fiscal autonomy) would believe that bodily autonomy > fiscal autonomy, which means that they would believe it's okay for a cocaine addict (who is broke due to their addiction) to steal from others to buy cocaine because their bodily autonomy > fiscal autonomy for other people.
You had me until you mentioned the cocaine addict. Once again, bodily autonomy does not equate to the right to steal money from others. Perhaps a more suitable proviso would be the coerced financial obligation that parents bear when they have children.

If hypothetically, your ranking was fiscal autonomy > bodily autonomy > right to life (in the context of what a parent has to do for their child), then you would believe that not paying child support for your is totally okay even if your kid starves to death because by your logic, fiscal autonomy > right to life, even for your own child.
Not necessarily. If can join both bodily and fiscal autonomy as "Resource Autonomy" for lack of a better term, then I would state that one's "right to life" as it is commonly described is mutually exclusive from one's "resource autonomy."