Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
There is no need to have the rights limited per se'. But we may be looking at a word use issue here. To me, one right overriding another in a specific situation is not limiting the second right. Right simply have priorities, and which one has the priority is situation dependant. But I can see where another would view that as limiting.
Specifically in this case ownership as in the the right to receive wrongful death compensation upon the termination of a pregnancy, or an attempt to coerce a pregnancy to term.
Stepping outside the specific of abortion, what is the premise of wrongful death based upon? I think this needs to be established before we can go further.
Well for one if my car breaks down or becomes inoperable because of your interference, I can fix it or get a new one and you can write me a check for the damages.
Your car, yes. However, that is a strawman argument because the situation I laid out has both of us as the owners on the title. Can you turn in that car for a new one without my consent?
I disagree. The time to have that discussion is before the technology arrives, especially if it is on the horizon, such as AW technology is currently. There might be more adjustment needed after it arises, but we should be looking ahead.
Actually, she doesn't even really have that choice. Right now she can choose to have it removed from her body, which will result in it's death, or if she wishes it to survive, then she must keep it inside her. She has no option to have it removed and remains alive. Her only actual choice is keep or remove. Anything beyond that is results not choice.
If she does not wish to add a new life to the planet, she does not have to consent to any procedure that removes it for its survival. What right does anyone else have to override her consent here?
Her consent is needed to have it removed. You have not actually established any right to have it terminated. As I have pointed out repeatedly, all we have is a result of a right, not a right in and of itself. If that right were actually there, then it would exist even if the pre-born was not inside her.
And I've listed reasons supported by the First Amendment and ethical and moral and environmental and societal and medical reasons. That no one else is entitled to supersede with their own interests. Unless you can provide justification and entitlement? Examples:
And keep in mind, I am still holding the assertion that a woman can have the offspring removed for no more reason than, "I just don't want it in there any more."
Ugh, women in TX, or other states like this should just shut their shit down right now! It's just getting too dangerous to **** around, and that's literal!
The right that she has is the ending of the pregnancy, which is the use of her bodily resources by the offspring. As long as that can be accomplished without her being forced into a procedure that is more physically traumatic than what is available, then it result to the life of the offspring does not enter into it.
The violation of bodily autonomy is resolved, even if the offspring lives after the procedure. Whether the termination of the offspring option is legal or not will depend on whether it remains legal or not.
It's not resolved. Even the Star Trek transporter malfunctions occasionally. The termination of the offspring inside a woman is legal now in every state at some point and you've provided no reasons why it couldnt be or shouldnt be. What is your argument that it could/should? It's not about the woman then, so it must be about the unborn. What about it?
But having a non terminating pregnancy ending procedure under the conditions I laid out as the only option, is no different that other procedures no longer being available because they are more physically traumatic than what is currently available.
You have one example that still makes zero sense and is outdated and ignore the fact that there also more hazardous procedures that remain legal. Sir, do you want Transcarotid Artery Revascularization or tPA? Or...can I just take the pills and see if the infection clears without amputation? Safer or not, the patient may weigh the risks and choose the more hazardous, based on their own agency.
And in any case, it does not supersede the violation of her 4th Amendment right to security of the person (yes, that's also bodily autonomy) and 1st Amendment rights, like her religious beliefs.
There is no need to have the rights limited per se'. But we may be looking at a word use issue here. To me, one right overriding another in a specific situation is not limiting the second right. Right simply have priorities, and which one has the priority is situation dependant. But I can see where another would view that as limiting.
Yes, there is, because that is how rights are limited.
The limitation on any given right is that they are overridden in certain circumstances. A right is limited when it comes up against another right or principle and comes out as a secondary concern.
Stepping outside the specific of abortion, what is the premise of wrongful death based upon? I think this needs to be established before we can go further.
The purpose of wrongful death is to compensate for the wrongful death of a loved one. When we wrongfully kill someone, we are depriving them of is the value of the time they would have had together.
Your car, yes. However, that is a strawman argument because the situation I laid out has both of us as the owners on the title. Can you turn in that car for a new one without my consent?
It doesn't matter how many owners are on the title. You asked how cars and people's bodies are different as a venue for where your stuff could be and whether you have a right to remove it, and I kept it very simple.
The difference is that a car which you can own can be easily replaced or remedied were it lost. Your body, which you also own lacks this quality as a venue.
If you sued me for the wrongful loss of, or damage to your car, I could replace it with an equivalent one or the monetary value placed upon it by the court.
We can't really do that with bodies although we sometimes try to put monetary damages on irreversible bodily harm, and even still the amounts are usually much higher, so the situations are not in any way equivalent.
So, no, it's not equivalent to talk about suing for damages that happen inside your car and inside your body were we to damage it.
I disagree. The time to have that discussion is before the technology arrives, especially if it is on the horizon, such as AW technology is currently. There might be more adjustment needed after it arises, but we should be looking ahead.
Generally, we need some time to figure out all the implications of any new technology when making new laws about it, however you'd have to be quite the prophet to know them ahead of time rather than in hindsight.
Actually, she doesn't even really have that choice. Right now she can choose to have it removed from her body, which will result in it's death, or if she wishes it to survive, then she must keep it inside her. She has no option to have it removed and remains alive. Her only actual choice is keep or remove. Anything beyond that is results not choice.
If she has an abortion pre-viability, it's not a question. If it's after viability...that's her choice also. If it survives, it's no longer 'unborn', it's a person and nope, she cant have it killed.
As I have pointed out repeatedly, all we have is a result of a right, not a right in and of itself. If that right were actually there, then it would exist even if the pre-born was not inside her.
I have no idea what that means. The woman has a right to bodily autonomy, security of the person and it is NOT dependent on what ever it is inside her, if that's what you mean, correct. She can have it removed or not, 'when' she wants to. If wants the unborn not to be born, she chooses abortion pre-viability.
How can Daoism, China's indigenous religion, give us the aesthetic, ethical, political, and spiritual tools to address the root causes of our ecological cris... | CUP
And keep in mind, I am still holding the assertion that a woman can have the offspring removed for no more reason than, "I just don't want it in there any more."
I dont care. If she morally does not believe in producing another life, she is protected under her 1st Amendment rights.
The First Amendment protects and promotes every individual's freedom of thought, belief, speech, and religious exercise as basic goods—as given ends of American political and moral life. It does not protect these freedoms for the sake of promoting any particular vision of the virtuous society. link
--and--
Opinions, viewpoints and beliefs — which are sometimes based on provable fact, other times on hypothetical theories and occasionally on lies and conspiracies — all contribute to what constitutional scholars and lawyers refer to as the “marketplace of ideas.” Similar to the commercial marketplace, the marketplace of ideas subjects all products to competition. The hope is that only the best will survive.
It's also incredibly disrespectful to women...and even the unborn...to presume it should be produced into a life of violence or grave physical or mental disability. Why should someone else have agency to impose on her decision? By what entitlement? For what reason? There must be a reason to supersede her belief or reasons.
I did acknowledge that "ownership" was not the accurate word earlier, and it's use was in keeping with the parallel.
As for recognition, we didn't always recognize a woman's right to bodily autonomy either. Does that mean it didn't exist? I say it did always exist. And I would say that a man has pre-birth responsibilities as well. Simply because we do not legally make him live up to them, it doesn't automatically mean they do not exist. It's no different than when we didn't legally force a man to pay child support to/for a born offspring.
I agree that the pregnancy is hers. The pregnancy. Not the offspring. The offspring is theirs. This is why the surrogate and AW situations are important for comparative use. They help show the difference between where a right exist, doesn't exist, and/or is overriden. The situation is actually equal. It is no more unequal than the situations between a pregnant woman and a woman not pregnant. The man has as much of a right to having an offspring removed from his body as does a woman with no uterus from hers. The right exists but can only be applied if the situation arises. Would you claim that a woman with no uterus has no right to an abortion? Right exists even when the situation to exercise them is not present.
As far as I know, a surrogate can have an abortion for herself, but she would basically face civil liability only in regards to rights of the parents, and likely it would look at the fact that they spent actual money to create the embryo/fetus she carried and she had a contract with them (as surrogacy almost always involves a contract). Those two factors make surrogacy unique in itself.
Artificial womb wouldn't involve a person being pregnant, so wouldn't involve an abortion because no pregnancy would mean no abortion to end the pregnancy. We don't know how that would potentially go because we just don't have any sort of reference for those situations as of now. It is like trying to determine how it would work if there was an alien woman who was able to get pregnant by a human man. We can't really determine that.
When it comes to a normal pregnancy, unless there is a contract, and in the vast majority of cases, there isn't, then he has no right to even really know of a pregnancy. He has no rights until after birth for any compensation because there was no formal agreement to a pregnancy as there would be in surrogacy situation. There also wouldn't likely be, in most cases, money used specifically to create the pregnancy, as in IVF.
If a woman doesn't have a uterus, then they have the same right to an abortion within their body that a cisgender man has, one that is only basically hypothetical at the moment as they can't currently get pregnant. If they get pregnant, then they'd have a right to an abortion. This is like claiming a person not charged with a crime has a right to free counsel, defense attorney for a nonexistent crime. Abortion rights only exist in relation to a pregnancy. You must have a pregnancy to have an abortion.
This is an awesome analogy for medical emergency. However further back in the thread (I think it was this one), I did make the point that if it was on one person's property, and they wanted to have the car removed, if the only way to do so was the destruction of the car, so be it. But while that right to have the car removed from the property overrides the other owner's rights, at least with regards to the first one's property, the first one can't override other rights, such as selling the car, without permission. The 2nd person's rights remain intact even if another right ends up overriding them.
There are no rights of each parent to an offspring though until birth. You seem to be trying to cram that in there. The rights of any person in regards to offspring begin at birth, not before.
The rights in regards to IVF, surrogacy, and/or AW would be related to the fact that both parents (if married and/or involved legally in agreements made) would be providing financially for the creation of the ZEF. That would mean that they could claim financial loss if someone else involved (key players) decided to terminate the pregnancy, but it would be almost certainly based on their financial loss and/or contract violation, which would only really exist within those specific circumstances and be limited to financial liability of loss of investment.
I have many times, why do I have to again? It's even in the form of a list. Go back and look. One was specifically related to her religion but the others are all about her freedom of expression.
"Using bodily resources" is not the only violation of bodily autonomy. It is an invasion OF her body, a violation of her body, a violation of her "security of the person" 4th Amendment right.
She's under no obligation to even tell the male she's pregnant. And certainly if she doesnt want the unborn removed alive, she could choose not to tell him.
His knowledge of the existence of the offspring is irrelevant to the hypothetical since it would be a matter of whether a given procedure was allowed or not, within the context that a procedure to end the pregnancy is still available.
That is what we are debating. There is an agreement that if she wants to end the pregnancy for any reason, she can, but not on the termination. These are not actually the same thing, even if they currently are effectively he same thing due to the current level of medical knowledge and technology.
Please detail this question. We are going over something that I think you are engaging in a conflation fallacy as to what I am saying, and I am not sure what aspects you are referring to here. And I really don't think that what current law is, is relevant in this matter. Especially since we do currently have laws (in some places) that say she can't have an abortion, but you are claiming (rightly so IMO) that she has a right to the abortion. So what we are discussing is not what the law is, but what it should be.
No one is making her get the process. She is the one seeking to have the offspring removed from her body. She is consenting to it. If she doesn't like what the results are, she is not required to get it. Her rights are intact, because she gets to choose to have the pregnancy ended or not.
Nothing about this is a1st amendment violation. Any decision that is about her bodily autonomy is 4th amendment as you pointed out. This becomes especially true if we use the premise of not your body. The offspring is not her body. So she doesn't get to decide in and of itself. Again, if in the exercise of one right termination occurs, which is what the current situation is, so be it. It's the same as if you kill an assailant that you can't get to stop any other way. Their right to life (in this case, not claiming a right to life for the offspring, nor claiming it's not there) does not override your right to bodily autonomy, but your bodily autonomy overrides their right to life, if there is no other way. Right now there is no other way for the removal of the offspring. We are exploring a possible situation where such is no longer the case.
You are still conflating a right and the result of a right. They are not the same thing. And sadly in some state, that legality seems to be more on paper than in practice.
And there are also more hazardous procedures that have been banned. But when I brought up such things you wanted to dismiss them. Now you want to bring up the topic? Under my premise and hypothetical, I made the specific point of that a more hazardous procedure could be made illegal without violation of rights, because the less hazardous procedure still fulfilled that right. But if you want to argue that we should be keeping hazardous procedures, then we can't ban conversion therapy. The principle is the same.
Sir, do you want Transcarotid Artery Revascularization or tPA? Or...can I just take the pills and see if the infection clears without amputation? Safer or not, the patient may weigh the risks and choose the more hazardous, based on their own agency.
I agree, within the bounds of what is available. Right now I can not weight the risks between Lithotomy and the current methods, because the Lithotomy procedure is no longer available. Where is my agency in this? Is this a violation of my 1st amendment right? Or of my bodily autonomy rights?
Yes, there is, because that is how rights are limited.
The limitation on any given right is that they are overridden in certain circumstances. A right is limited when it comes up against another right or principle and comes out as a secondary concern.
The purpose of wrongful death is to compensate for the wrongful death of a loved one. When we wrongfully kill someone, we are depriving them of is the value of the time they would have had together.
It doesn't matter how many owners are on the title. You asked how cars and people's bodies are different as a venue for where your stuff could be and whether you have a right to remove it, and I kept it very simple.
The difference is that a car which you can own can be easily replaced or remedied were it lost. Your body, which you also own lacks this quality as a venue.
If you sued me for the wrongful loss of, or damage to your car, I could replace it with an equivalent one or the monetary value placed upon it by the court.
We can't really do that with bodies although we sometimes try to put monetary damages on irreversible bodily harm, and even still the amounts are usually much higher, so the situations are not in any way equivalent.
So, no, it's not equivalent to talk about suing for damages that happen inside your car and inside your body were we to damage it.
Parallels don't have to be equivalent. They just have to be similar enough to support the point. And you are still presenting your arguments in terms of your car or my car, as opposed to looking at the situation of our car, which is what makes it into the parallel of our offspring.
Generally, we need some time to figure out all the implications of any new technology when making new laws about it, however you'd have to be quite the prophet to know them ahead of time rather than in hindsight.
I'm not claiming that we can figure it all out beforehand. But we are, for the most part, intelligent beings, and as such we do have enough imagination to start looking ahead and trying to head off problems before then occur, and then handle the ones we didn't see when they arise.
Not really, the basis is the value you would be compensated for, or the harm done to you.
In this case you are compensated for the value of the time you would have spent with the individual, it is not in fact the case that you own people and need to be compensated for property.
Parallels don't have to be equivalent. They just have to be similar enough to support the point. And you are still presenting your arguments in terms of your car or my car, as opposed to looking at the situation of our car, which is what makes it into the parallel of our offspring.
Well in the analogy the car is the woman, the shared property in the car is the baby, so it doesn't work that way either unless you feel you can have ownership of someone else body.
The key distinction exists between cars and peoples bodies, in that one can be subdivided, harmed and replaced quite easily but the other can not.
I'm not claiming that we can figure it all out beforehand. But we are, for the most part, intelligent beings, and as such we do have enough imagination to start looking ahead and trying to head off problems before then occur, and then handle the ones we didn't see when they arise.
It is not the same. If someone comes into your house and steals something...that is robbery. If they come into your home without an invitation, that is a violation of 4th Amendment privacy. It's still illegal and a violation of the 4th A.
Why do police need probable cause to search cars, homes, people? Because it's an invasion of their 4th Amendment rights without it.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..." 4th Amendment It doesnt say anything about harm or risk.
LOL if you demand the entitlement to remove the living unborn from the woman, it clearly violates the 4th A. What gives someone else the right to "seize" it? Please explain the justification?
That is what we are debating. There is an agreement that if she wants to end the pregnancy for any reason, she can, but not on the termination. These are not actually the same thing, even if they currently are effectively he same thing due to the current level of medical knowledge and technology.
Please detail this question. We are going over something that I think you are engaging in a conflation fallacy as to what I am saying, and I am not sure what aspects you are referring to here. And I really don't think that what current law is, is relevant in this matter. Especially since we do currently have laws (in some places) that say she can't have an abortion, but you are claiming (rightly so IMO) that she has a right to the abortion. So what we are discussing is not what the law is, but what it should be.
No. Think about it. And of course current laws matter. If you want to change them in the course of debate, you need to provide reasons. Justification. And our rights arent changing either as far as I know. And their needs to be justification for violating a woman's rights as well.
No one is making her get the process. She is the one seeking to have the offspring removed from her body. She is consenting to it. If she doesn't like what the results are, she is not required to get it. Her rights are intact, because she gets to choose to have the pregnancy ended or not.
You have not justified any one else's right to remove her unborn alive yet. So of course she can choose. What is the basis for entitling someone ELSE to determine what to do with the contents of her body against her explicit consent?
Who is entitled to violate her 4th and 1st Amendment rights and why?
I have already proven that she does have 1st A and 4th A rights (besides bodily autonomy). So your statement is not debate unless you can respond directly to my quotes on the 1st A and 4th A.
You have yet to address post 131...where I am very clear about how the 1st A is defined.
Again, if in the exercise of one right termination occurs, which is what the current situation is, so be it. It's the same as if you kill an assailant that you can't get to stop any other way. Their right to life (in this case, not claiming a right to life for the offspring, nor claiming it's not there) does not override your right to bodily autonomy, but your bodily autonomy overrides their right to life, if there is no other way. Right now there is no other way for the removal of the offspring. We are exploring a possible situation where such is no longer the case.
You are back to risk again. You have not addressed my arguments supporting her 1st and 4th Amendment rights (to seizure, to security of the person/home, etc.) You are making statements, not arguments.
You are still conflating a right and the result of a right. They are not the same thing. And sadly in some state, that legality seems to be more on paper than in practice.
And there are also more hazardous procedures that have been banned. But when I brought up such things you wanted to dismiss them. Now you want to bring up the topic? Under my premise and hypothetical, I made the specific point of that a more hazardous procedure could be made illegal without violation of rights, because the less hazardous procedure still fulfilled that right. But if you want to argue that we should be keeping hazardous procedures, then we can't ban conversion therapy. The principle is the same.
And in ALL those cases, the availability or restriction of the procedures must be justified. I clearly gave examples that prove that just because a procedure is more hazardous, there are times when the patient decides. You have not justified denying the woman the procedure of her choice.
I agree, within the bounds of what is available. Right now I can not weight the risks between Lithotomy and the current methods, because the Lithotomy procedure is no longer available. Where is my agency in this? Is this a violation of my 1st amendment right? Or of my bodily autonomy rights?
You have yet to address post 131...where I am very clear about how the 1st A is defined. And post 145 where the 4th A is defined. Beyond basic bodily autonomy.
And I really don't think that what current law is, is relevant in this matter. Especially since we do currently have laws (in some places) that say she can't have an abortion, but you are claiming (rightly so IMO) that she has a right to the abortion. So what we are discussing is not what the law is, but what it should be.
Btw, there is no right to abortion. For purposes of our discussion, elective abortion is legal. I have discussed in previous threads that she has Const rights that are violated if she is denied a abortion. That's different and much more along the lines we're discussing. And elective abortion is not illegal in any state yet. It is legal up to a point in all. And even in those states, she's not criminalized for having an abortion, it's not murder or a crime. It's providing the abortions that's being criminalized. There's a huge distinction and that is related to what we're discussing.
I THINK...when she returns to Texas he could sue her and anyone who helped her that lived in Texas including friends and I think even try to go after the airline/bus if one was taken.
If she has an abortion pre-viability, it's not a question. If it's after viability...that's her choice also. If it survives, it's no longer 'unborn', it's a person and nope, she cant have it killed.
I have no idea what that means. The woman has a right to bodily autonomy, security of the person and it is NOT dependent on what ever it is inside her, if that's what you mean, correct. She can have it removed or not, 'when' she wants to.
No. I am validating her right to cease being the one who gestates the unborn, to no longer bear it herself to term. But the question you responded to did not ask what you replied with. So let's try again.
Does her religion allow her to override the man if the offspring is in an AW? Does his religion allow him to override he woman if the offspring is in an AW?
How can Daoism, China's indigenous religion, give us the aesthetic, ethical, political, and spiritual tools to address the root causes of our ecological cris... | CUP
And? I notice that religious rights don't allow polygamy or the use of drugs within a ceremony, or well a lot of things. If those are not 1st amendment violations, why is what you claim a 1st amendment violation?
I asked you to show how that condition is an actual 1st amendment right. I don't have to prove any validity of lack thereof for the 1st amendment if that criteria is not covered by the 1st. Simply claiming something is covered by the 1st amendment doesn't mean that it is. And since it is your initial positive claim, that burden is on you. I can recognize the validity of her 1st amendment rights without agreeing that the listed criteria is covered under he 1st amendment.
I dont care. If she morally does not believe in producing another life, she is protected under her 1st Amendment rights.
The First Amendment protects and promotes every individual's freedom of thought, belief, speech, and religious exercise as basic goods—as given ends of American political and moral life. It does not protect these freedoms for the sake of promoting any particular vision of the virtuous society.
So where is my protection to use drugs as part of my religious ceremony? How come I can't perform that religious exercise as basic goods? Yeah, pretty much all thought, belief and speech is protected, but not all exercise.
It's also incredibly disrespectful to women...and even the unborn...to presume it should be produced into a life of violence or grave physical or mental disability.
Would that not also be disrespectful to men, and the unborn, to presume that it should be produced into a life of violence or grave physical or mental disability should she choose to bring it to term?
You have yet to address post 131...where I am very clear about how the 1st A is defined. And post 145 where the 4th A is defined. Beyond basic bodily autonomy.
Still playing catch up, but saw this. Had you not noticed that I had not yet gotten to post 131 or 145 as of when you asked this question? Just because I am able to start getting back to this forum, it does not mean I have a lot of time to get to it? Have a little patience. BTW, 131 was addressed in the last post. You're going to have to wait on 145. I'll get to it when I get to it.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
