DebateAllDaTings

Searching for information on how to murder isn’t premeditated murder. Someone could be just googling it for curiosity on how to do it, there’s no way to show intent. 

Also, miscarriage isn’t abortion so mentioning Franklin seems confusing.

Give an example of an "intentional miscarriage". I'm not even sure that statement makes any sense...A miscarriage is defined as "spontaneous loss of a pregnancy before the 20th week" according to medical journals.

This is something that occurs due to the inner workings of the body due to internal complications. 

Are you talking about someone who starves themselves or takes drugs to try and cause one?

Also, not all murder is caught. If someone doesn't report their pregnancy and hides the intentional killing of their unborn child, then it is something that I suppose they just get away with (it is not like they have to hide a body in a grave or something). It would be impossible to practically regulate such things.

There's tons of ways to determine the cause of the miscarriage. Blood tests, ultrasounds, genetic screening, hormone tests etc.

If there was any gross negligence then it could easily be determined. Most cases? It has nothing to do with negligance.

Intent matters. 

A baby dying due to internal complications that the mother didn't choose is not the same thing as choosing to kill the child.

My friend was driving a car that killed my best friend, he got no charges and no jail time because it was an accident. Now, if he intended to kill my friend that would be different.

According to the law, intent is crucial in determining criminality. This is called Mens Rea.

If someone is literally starving themselves and refusing to sleep then yes, that would be negligence. I doubt it would be hard not to notice that was the reason for miscarriage. Doctors can tell these sort of things.

Not saving someone is not the same as actively killing them.

There's a huge difference between not donating to save someone, and pushing them in a woodchipper.

Miscarriage isn't a choice so it isn't murder or manslaughter, it is an accident that is not due to any negligence of the mother so there should be no penalty.

"what if someone knocks on your door in the middle of a snow-storm

"I am a strong proponent of eviction. If I, as a property manager, evict someone from my property, I haven't executed them. I have removed them from my property and they, being fully autonomous persons, are responsible for their own life regardless of where they live."

You are the one who used eviction as an analogy to abortion, so I don't know why you would talk about "being under the skin" when I am simply going off your own analogy that you provided. Being under the skin wouldn't be an analogy, it would be literally describing the initial scenario in question.

"My position is that all rights are contigent on self ownership. If we don't own ourselves, then rights are meaningless. How can you posses a right but not the body it is meant protect?"

Breaking into a house is not analogous to a man beginning to exist by popping into my house.

Again, human life begins at conception so my analogy was about a life beginning in the place in question. That is NOT the same as existing outside the place in question and breaking in. 

I am talking about a life starting their existence in the place in question. 

Thus, This analogy from you misses the mark.

Relying on a heartbeat seems like an arbitrary condition to count as "autonomous". You are basically just describing the situation of the unborn and saying "that's what makes the unborn not autonomous" which is question begging.

I see no reason why the unborn doesn't deserve the same right to life as anybody.

If a man popped into my house right now, and would die for some reason if he left my house, I would have a moral obligation to not push him out of my house as that is murder as it is killing him.

I think our disagreement on this matter comes down to which is valued more, the right of ownership of property, or the right to not be killed. 

Deportation isn't the same as killing someone. If someone is deported and they survive that is looked at as a success. However, if a baby survives abortion that is literally called a "failed abortion". The whole purpose of an abortion is to kill the baby, not to take the baby out early and have it live.

A woman (or a man) has to be whatever is entailed by not killing an innocent human. If that entails being an incubator, or being anything else that is entailed by not killing an innocent human with moral value, then so be it.

Also, those laws are not universal, in my country you cannot take a life just because someone is trespassing.

Also, trespassing entails one being some place where they are not supposed to be. The fetus's home is literally the mother's womb, that is the natural place they are supposed to be. Thus, the two are not comparable.

A trespasser comes from outside, a trespasser cannot grow from within. The human life starts at conception, and conception begins within the mother.

So just to clarify your position, one is not autonomous if their living existence is dependent on another person? 

Also, it is not just about disallowing occupancy as the child must first be killed inside the womb before the child comes out. It is all about killing another human. If a child survives an abortion that is a literally called a "failed abortion". 

We should always invade the privacy of someone who wants to kill an innocent human being. Imagine if we never invaded Jeffery Dalmer's privacy....

If you plan on having a human killed, you are the first person who should have your privacy invaded.

So you believe your home being remodelled is justification for killing someone? I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

If you would kill someone with instruments and force their corpse to leave the property and take away their whole future, just because it's "your house" then that shows you care more about convenience and property than human life.

Human life is the most precious thing there is, so I suppose we just have different values.

If they would  get butchered and die in the streets if they weren't in a home (like the unborn would die outside the womb if they weren't in the womb) then yes. 

Also, part of my tax money is already being used in government programs to help feed and shelter the homeless.

Why are they not autonomous persons merely because you claim them not to be? That's not convincing. Why are we autonomous person's and not them?

Also, did you know that abortion changes a woman's body and life as well? You are not talking about preventing a pregnancy, you are talking about sticking instruments in a woman who is already pregnant and killing her unborn child.  There's Hormonal changes, breast tissue, lactation and even changes at the cellular level because of abortion. 

Also, comandeering a body isn't the same during rape and you know it. With rape it is done with intent to harm, with the unborn child it's necessary to live and there is no ill will from the unborn or malicious intent.

Are you for the death penalty? You must be if you believe the unborn deserve to be killed for the penalty of simply existing in their natural place.

The baby not being able to live outside the mother doesn't mean that it's ok to kill the baby; that is a non-sequitur and does not follow. 

Also the nutrients being lost are not that much. ..No mother has ever starved to death because the baby inside her took all her nutrients that's absurd. Women don't even need ANY additional calories in the first trimester. 

These justifications for killing the unborn child are incredibly weak.

The problem is deporting people doesn't entail killing them like in abortion, so your example fails. People would look at deportation as mass murder if the only way to leave the country was to be murdered with instruments first.

"At no point does the right to have dominion over your body extend to someone else's body and you know it."

Obviously I agree, as I have said many times in this thread.

The only point of those absurd examples I gave was to get the pro-choice people to admit the very point you did.

The mother having dominion over her body does not entail dominion over someone else's body (her unborn child's body in this example).

Thus, that clarification of bodily autonomy that you mentioned actually supports the pro-life position not the pro-choice position.

 

“No, my example shows rape and murder can't be argued against without the protections of self-ownership and bodily autonomy. Ownership of my body does not include ownership of your body. You completely misunderstand rights and how they work.”
 
I know my examples seemed absurd at first glance, it was all because I was hoping you would make this very point.
 
"Your bodily autonomy provides you no protection when you seek to harm another autonomous person. I would be justified in whatever course of action necessary to stop your intended attack."

This is EXACTLY the point I wanted you to make.

As I said a few posts up, you should only be able to do what you want with your own body as long as you aren’t posing a significant risk to others, or causing them harm or death.

Abortion literally causes harm to the body of the unborn and kills the unborn, and thus pro-lifers are justified in stopping a women from killing her child in the same way you would be justified in stopping me from killing a child with a gun.

This is why bodily autonomy actually supports the pro-life position, as the bodily autonomy of the unborn is being violated during an abortion.

Your example just proved my point.

Bodily autonomy can be used to justify murder and rape, AND it can be used as a protection from it.

This is what makes Bodily Autonomy a vacuous and conflicting principle.

If I’m about to shoot a child and you swat my arm without my consent to touch me, you have violated my bodily autonomy as you touched my body without my permission. Also, who are you to tell me I can't pull the trigger, isn't my finger, can't I do what I want with my own finger on my own body?

Bodily autonomy is used as a justification for killing, as it’s used as a justification for killing the unborn human growing inside the womb.

Bodily autonomy is defined as self-governance and self-determination over one’s own body.

Therefore, if I aimed a gun at a child and was about to pull the trigger and you swatted my arm out of the way without my consent to touch my arm, you would be BY DEFINITION violating my bodily autonomy.

This is why bodily autonomy is an issue, because it can be used as a justification for the same moral atrocities it is supposedly a shield against.…Unless you have a different definition of bodily autonomy I’m not aware of.

Calling something dumb is an argument.

You would have to be a troll to think it was an argument.

Bodily autonomy by definition is the self-ownership and self-discrimination over one’s own body.

Such a principle is obviously flawed because being able to do what you want with your own body could entail *harming someone else’s body* in the process.

This is exactly why people should only be allowed to do what they want with their own body if they aren’t posing a significant risk to other bodies with moral value.

Since abortion obviously causes harm to the unborn’s body, then it’s valid to question whether or not this should be a right someone should have.

Bodily autonomy is a terrible thing. If people can do what they want with their own bodies then rape and murder are justified. Imagine “I was just doing what I want with my body” as a defense.

The right to life obviously trumps bodily autonomy, as bodily autonomy is a horrible thing to begin with.

Also, the birth of the child is a natural occurrence after conception nobody is forcing it to happen, so the idea of “forced birth” is just an abuse of the English language.

It would be like saying you, me, and everyone in the world are “forcing” the flowers in the forest next to me to grow by not picking those flowers.

Nobody can “force” something to happen that is happening naturally.

 

Are we “forcing” the tides to move the way they do because we haven’t blown up the moon? Are we forcing the Earth to spin around the Sun because we haven’t created a black hole to stop it?

No, that’s silly, just like it’s silly to say we are “forcing” women to give birth by not killing the unborn in the womb.

Again, you can’t FORCE something to happen that is happening naturally (as my examples show).

The intervention of abortion is the only “forcing” going on (we are forcing the unborn to die to prevent natural birth).

Literally no pro-lifer thinks a woman should be forced to give birth, as such a thing is literally impossible.

If we mean “man” or “woman” pertaining to biological sex and not gender, then the question is really “what is a male or female?”.

This depends on whether you define sex in terms of genetics or genitalia. I think genetics is more fundamental with genitalia being more cosmetic meaning the former is a better way to determine sex.

Most males and females have their genitalia in line with their genetics, but there are very rare mismatches.

If would say a male has XY chromosomes and a female has XX chromosomes. Period.

If an XY person has a vagina then that vagina is an biological error, and if a XX person has a penis then that penis is a biological error.

Your genitals don’t change your genetics.

I don’t think people should be able to do what they want with their own bodies, as that’s an insane idea.

If we allowed this, then people could rape, kill, and steal with no issue. All those things require bodily movement after all, and thus stabbing could be justified by saying “it’s my arm, I can move it in an up and down motion if I want to don’t tell me what to do with my body”.

This is why “my body, my choice” is an utterly absurd premise.

No, you shouldn’t be able to do whatever you want with your body.

Thank goodness for that!