• 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!

When do females lose their right to bodily autonomy?

When do females lose their right to bodily autonomy?


  • Total voters
    28
Because I assumed by your avatar that you were probably in the military.

You assumed from a picture of the main character of the BBC adaptation of the Terry Pratchett fantasy novel Going Postal (in which a captured con man has to run a post office as his punishment) that I was in the military?

How, exactly, does that work?

The problem with the pro-life movement is that it has always aspired to use punishment instead of honey to achieve its goals. Furthermore, there is an absence of focus on the behavior of men! So it leads me to doubt their stated motivations- which seems to lean in to control- of women..

Respectfully, that is a projection of the antithesis of your own motives onto people who support the antithesis of your means. Would you say that what motivates your position here is your desire to kill babies?
 
In the context of what I wrote, I'm not understanding your distinction. I see their choices the same based on what I wrote.

It's the difference between "this child has downs syndrome, so, abort it, specifically" and "black people are more likely to produce violent children, so, abort black babies"
 
Nope. Not a pacifist, either, if that's where you are going with it. There are times where others' decisions make violence against them justifiable.
To reply to the actual O.P., I would say that women never have total bodily autonomy, so ... but no one has total bodily autonomy. No one is totally free. Humans are a collection of cells from other organisms. Our behavior is predicated on genes but also epigenetic, hormones, economic circumstances, cultural demands and expectations, parents, husbands. And so forth. We do not really have free will, I.M.O. We ,Americans, grow up in our extremely violent cultures which transmits to women that our bodies are valued , not our brains. The value of children?- our politics does not suggest we value mothers and children. MAGA supporters apparently believed it was fine to separate children from parents. Many of our "faith leaders" have betrayed women and children.

That some of the most angry, misognist males in this country are also the ones trying to reduce women's bodily autonomy- it is hard to swallow.
 
You assumed from a picture of the main character of the BBC adaptation of the Terry Pratchett fantasy novel Going Postal (in which a captured con man has to run a post office as his punishment) that I was in the military?

How, exactly, does that work?
Ok, I did not see that series . Actually thought it might be a character from McHale's Navy
Respectfully, that is a projection of the antithesis of your own motives onto people who support the antithesis of your means. Would you say that what motivates your position here is your desire to kill babies?
Sorry, I am not following. Obviously, these threads are not designed to convince anyone. I don't know you from Adam. Just trying to figure out what is the basis of your philosophy. Your posts are typically thoughtful - hence my questions.

I don't equate an embryo with a baby- otherwise I would have trouble w the fact that several of my relatives have created and discarded many embryos in the quest to have a child. The 'projection' that I see problematic is the tendency to project what might be for what actually is. That is why these discussions tend to argue about the imagined adult resulting from a pregnancy.
 
It's the difference between "this child has downs syndrome, so, abort it, specifically" and "black people are more likely to produce violent children, so, abort black babies"

Not at all. My example would be, a couple who knows they have Huntingdon's Disease in their family and accidentally get pregnant. That woman should have no obstacles to deciding to abort that unborn.

Can you give me a reason why she shouldnt be able to decide that?

Re: the Down's Syndrome...that is fact, the other re: blacks is imposed on it from the outside and can be prevented. Again...these are conditions and considerations any woman SHOULD be able to decide based on her needs and circumstances. In both cases. If she's not prepared to give a child a secure home, one that doesnt pose risks to the care for other dependents, her means of feeding and housing them, etc...why shouldnt she have the right to make the best decision based on her/their needs?

I think you are helping me make my case.
 
Ok, I did not see that series . Actually thought it might be a character from McHale's Navy
.....
.....
.... Okay. Okay. Um, if ever someone in these forums could succeed - if ever we could have a conversation that is, potentially, life changing, please, if you enjoy humor or fantasy writing at all, please, for the love of God, or Mithra, or Ice Cream, or whatever your highest value is, please, go pick up Terry Pratchett.

You don't have to take it from some random dude on a forum - go check out the fan pages, the reviews, but, for reals.

Sorry, I am not following. Obviously, these threads are not designed to convince anyone. I don't know you from Adam. Just trying to figure out what is the basis of your philosophy. Your posts are typically thoughtful - hence my questions.

:) The good opinion of those with whom one disagrees is the hardest to get, and hence the most valued. Thank you.

The point I was trying to make was that we have to distinguish between someone opposing our means, and someone opposing our motives.

In this debate, generally, (you get the population-control eugenicist folks, and, the others side tries to make them representative, but, they aren't) Pro Choice advocates are driven by a motivation that could be roughly summed up as "liberty and autonomy for women". Because, like you, they generally hold the position that:

I don't equate an embryo with a baby

... they see "protect access to abortion" as a means of achieving their motive "liberty and autonomy for women".

Pro Life advocates, generally (you get your would-be cranks out there, and, the other side tries to make them representative, but they aren't) are motivated by a sentiment that could be roughly summed up as "protect innocent life".

Because they generally hold the position that unborn children are children, they see "limit abortion to only that which is necessary to protect innocent life" as a means of achieving their motive.

It is a very human failing, however, to assume that those who oppose our means must oppose our ends. So, some in the Pro Life side will occasionally accuse Pro Choicers of opposing their motive of "protect innocent life" by accusing them of wanting to kill babies, or being "actually" "pro abortion".

This is bad reasoning, because it projects Pro Life beliefs ("an unborn baby is a human child", "limiting abortion to only that which is necessary protects innocent life") onto Pro Choicers, and it's a bad argument, because it's an ad hominem: "My opponent's arguments about the nature of the embryo/fetus are irrelevant because their motives are bad."

Pro Choicers will often do the same thing: projecting their underlying beliefs ("an embryo is not a child", "protecting access to abortion is how we can protect the liberty and autonomy of women") onto Pro Lifers, and accusing them of the opposite of the Pro Choice motive ("They want to control women") for pursuing the opposite of the Pro Choice means ("protect access to abortion").

But, that is just as bad an argument as the "pro killing babies" accusation, and for the same reason. :-/
 
Not at all. My example would be, a couple who knows they have Huntingdon's Disease in their family and accidentally get pregnant. That woman should have no obstacles to deciding to abort that unborn.

In this example, it is, at all. That was the argument given (Aborting the children of [category of people] is justified because [category of people] are more likely to have violent children), and, the poster even acknowledged the eugenics flavor it carried.


 
In this example, it is, at all. That was the argument given (Aborting the children of [category of people] is justified because [category of people] are more likely to have violent children), and, the poster even acknowledged the eugenics flavor it carried.

I didnt really focus on that specifically, but I did provide an answer. A direct answer to that, except for the woman as an individual, and a decision on an individual basis. Only that individual can justify it, based on herself and her circumstances. So no, not as a category as you mention.

I didnt realize that there was a movement, or even suggestion, that society should incentivize black women to abort...as a reality, that seems rather far afield. It dehumanizes black women.
 
I didnt really focus on that specifically, but I did provide an answer. A direct answer to that, except for the woman as an individual, and a decision on an individual basis. So no, not as a category as you mention.

I was responding to choice one's argument :) if you wish to make a separate argument, that is fine, but, it doesn't transmogrify her bailey into your motte.


I didnt realize that there was a movement, or even suggestion, that society should incentivize black women to abort...as a reality, that seems rather far afield. It dehumanizes black women.
I would agree with that assessment, and find the defenses of abortion that either explicitly state or seem to run right up adjacent to that argument particularly abhorrent.
 
I was responding to choice one's argument :) if you wish to make a separate argument, that is fine, but, it doesn't transmogrify her motte into your bailey.



I would agree with that assessment, and find the defenses of abortion that either explicitly state or seem to run right up adjacent to that argument particularly abhorrent.

Did the 2nd part of my post, which you removed, not answer it?
 
Did the 2nd part of my post, which you removed, not answer it?
Not answer what? That was your seperate argument for abortion, which was not the particular argument regarding the value-less nature of children who are potentially going to be more violent that choice one was advancing.
 
Not answer what? That was your seperate argument for abortion, which was not the particular argument regarding the value-less nature of children who are potentially going to be more violent that choice one was advancing.

The part about where that view (or posit) dehumanized black women.
 
.....
.....
.... Okay. Okay. Um, if ever someone in these forums could succeed - if ever we could have a conversation that is, potentially, life changing, please, if you enjoy humor or fantasy writing at all, please, for the love of God, or Mithra, or Ice Cream, or whatever your highest value is, please, go pick up Terry Pratchett.

You don't have to take it from some random dude on a forum - go check out the fan pages, the reviews, but, for reals.



:) The good opinion of those with whom one disagrees is the hardest to get, and hence the most valued. Thank you.

The point I was trying to make was that we have to distinguish between someone opposing our means, and someone opposing our motives.

In this debate, generally, (you get the population-control eugenicist folks, and, the others side tries to make them representative, but, they aren't) Pro Choice advocates are driven by a motivation that could be roughly summed up as "liberty and autonomy for women". Because, like you, they generally hold the position that:



... they see "protect access to abortion" as a means of achieving their motive "liberty and autonomy for women".

Pro Life advocates, generally (you get your would-be cranks out there, and, the other side tries to make them representative, but they aren't) are motivated by a sentiment that could be roughly summed up as "protect innocent life".

Because they generally hold the position that unborn children are children, they see "limit abortion to only that which is necessary to protect innocent life" as a means of achieving their motive.

It is a very human failing, however, to assume that those who oppose our means must oppose our ends. So, some in the Pro Life side will occasionally accuse Pro Choicers of opposing their motive of "protect innocent life" by accusing them of wanting to kill babies, or being "actually" "pro abortion".

This is bad reasoning, because it projects Pro Life beliefs ("an unborn baby is a human child", "limiting abortion to only that which is necessary protects innocent life") onto Pro Choicers, and it's a bad argument, because it's an ad hominem: "My opponent's arguments about the nature of the embryo/fetus are irrelevant because their motives are bad."

Pro Choicers will often do the same thing: projecting their underlying beliefs ("an embryo is not a child", "protecting access to abortion is how we can protect the liberty and autonomy of women") onto Pro Lifers, and accusing them of the opposite of the Pro Choice motive ("They want to control women") for pursuing the opposite of the Pro Choice means ("protect access to abortion").

But, that is just as bad an argument as the "pro killing babies" accusation, and for the same reason. :-/
Off topic, but: I may have to print and frame your post.

I think there was a bit more goodwill on this site between people who disagree 10 years ago- but perhaps my memory fails me! For that matter, the category of discussion that seems to be missing here (and what interests me most) is political philosophy. A person's view of the 'good life' informs every other point of view. My philosophy of life springs from Stoic and Buddhist philosophies. There is no likelihood that I will find much common ground with (for example) a fundamentalist Christian, but if some people find peace and fulfillment through faith, I am happy to hear more about it. That seems the best starting point for people to respectfully disagree. I would like to know WHY people believe what they do.
 
The example you gave was indeed a horrific one, but the specific horror of a mentally damaged child that grows into someone who threatens others is one that can occur equally from pregnancies that are wanted. The value of a child is not determined by a hypothetical about what they might do, any more than the value of a woman is. No child, and no woman, is worthless.




It's about like being an anti slavery person pre 1861. :( You believe there is an entire class of people being horrifically abused in our country, and are almost powerless to stop it.
No, being anti-abortion is not like being an anti-slavery person. An embryo/fetus is not at all like a slave, because it doesn't function for anyone's benefit.

Unwanted pregnancy is like the state of slavery to whomever is preventing the abortion of the pregnancy. Pregnancy is, precisely, working 24/7 with no break even for sleep or using the toilet and without pay in order to grow an embryo/fetus into a person. It permanently alters a woman's body and infuses her blood with loose chromosomes from the embryo/fetus, and 50% of them belong to the man. It can cause permanent damage to her health.

I do not think embryos/fetuses are persons at all. They are not "almost powerless." They are nothing but incomplete material until women's bodies finish making the material into persons.

Unless the woman consents to the pregnancy, no one has the right even to recognize that the embryo/fetus has a life that doesn't belong to the woman. The anti-abortion people want to alienate part of a woman's life and liberty, and her right to them, in order to transfer them to the embryo/fetus.

I think every person who makes anti-abortion laws, or votes for any representatives who make them, is a rapist, because the relation of rapist/rape accomplice and rape victim is that of master and slave. So those lawmakers are using embryos or fetuses as rape tools to violate women until the latter give them the babies they wish to have. It's nothing but rape.

That's what I believe.
 
Off topic, but: I may have to print and frame your post.

I think there was a bit more goodwill on this site between people who disagree 10 years ago- but perhaps my memory fails me! For that matter, the category of discussion that seems to be missing here (and what interests me most) is political philosophy. A person's view of the 'good life' informs every other point of view. My philosophy of life springs from Stoic and Buddhist philosophies. There is no likelihood that I will find much common ground with (for example) a fundamentalist Christian, but if some people find peace and fulfillment through faith, I am happy to hear more about it. That seems the best starting point for people to respectfully disagree. I would like to know WHY people believe what they do.
I was raised as a Protestant Christian, went to Sunday school, sang in the choir, and was confirmed. At about 14? when I read about Sherri Finkbine's having to go to Sweden to get an abortion of a pregnancy with a thalidomide deformed fetus, I was horrified that there were any anti-abortion laws.

I believed then, as now, that it is disgusting for any government to try to control the internal sex organs of girls and women against their will and conscience for any reason, because it is way too much like rape.

At 17, I lost one of my closest friends over this issue and could not be sorry because anyone who would make anti-abortion laws and so seek to punish a woman for controlling her own sex organs is no more your friend, as a woman, than a rapist is.

In my lifetime, there have been two political issues that I call Christ issues. These are issues that so divide us they recall the passage in the Gospels about "I have come, not to bring peace, but a sword" dividing family members, friends, nations, etc. One was addressed in the Civil Rights Act. The other is abortion.

To me, if you killed Roe v Wade, you basically killed Christ.
 
More than that. No surprise that men have always tried to control women's reproduction.

A woman carries within her body the entire family tree including the cells of every fetus she has ever carried.

In that respect, even an aborted fetus lives on.
The fetal cells don't begin to be transferred into her blood until some weeks after implantation, but that is one of the best reasons for getting an abortion at the earliest possible moment if you don't want them in your blood - because it won't live on. And that is also a reason why cremation is better than burial when you pop off.
 
As I understand it, @choiceone's argument isn't "cull the mentally defective", it's "cull those who may have a greater chance of being mentally defective".
In the particular example - which you do not note - it is that:

1) if a woman or girl does not want to continue a rape pregnancy, it may be because she'd rather die herself than reproduce a rapist or have any of the chromosomes of the rapist in her blood;
2) one reason for not reproducing a rapist is the belief that a rape embryo wasn't made by God or truth and therefore is an illusion without justification for existence;
3) one reason for such a belief might be that the chromosomes of the rape embryo may in fact reproduce genes making the rapist a rapist.

I myself don't think (3) is necessary for (2) or (1), for that matter. If someone is conceived in rape and gets born and grows up to be a pro-choice person, I think that person is saved from being without justification for existence. But growing up to be an anti-abortion person? No salvation.
 
Last edited:
It's the difference between "this child has downs syndrome, so, abort it, specifically" and "black people are more likely to produce violent children, so, abort black babies"
You keep assuming the embryo or fetus is a child, so you think you are saying something persuasive, but for me, a fetus with Down syndrome is not a child: it's a fetus, an incomplete body being made for a future child. If you choose to continue making it, you will stick a future child with it, so that the child will have to have that particular body all its life. Whereas, if you abort that pregnancy and later make a better body for a future child, that future child will get a better body for its life.

The "black" example is different, because being black has nothing to do with being more likely to produce violent children, whereas being a violent rapist does have to do with being more likely to produce violent children - but so are specifics act of rape itself more likely to produce them.
 
You keep assuming the embryo or fetus is a child, so you think you are saying something persuasive, but for me, a fetus with Down syndrome is not a child: it's a fetus, an incomplete body being made for a future child. If you choose to continue making it, you will stick a future child with it, so that the child will have to have that particular body all its life. Whereas, if you abort that pregnancy and later make a better body for a future child, that future child will get a better body for its life.

The "black" example is different, because being black has nothing to do with being more likely to produce violent children, whereas being a violent rapist does have to do with being more likely to produce violent children - but so are specifics act of rape itself more likely to produce them.

Well said. Please see my post 991 which concurs.

He does not make a distinction between unborn and 'child,' but then I wonder if he makes a distinction between child and adult? What would the distinction be? Height?
 
Well said. Please see my post 991 which concurs.

He does not make a distinction between unborn and 'child,' but then I wonder if he makes a distinction between child and adult? What would the distinction be? Height?
Yes, this is the basic point on which anti-choicers are stuck. They think that the sperm fertilizing the ovum makes a baby, a child, and the woman does nothing but caretake it. The fact that gestation alone can grow the embryo into a child seems beyond their comprehension. It reminds me of the old-fashioned expression "He gave her a baby" for "He made her pregnant."

Honestly, why are they allowed to live with us in the 21st century? They should go back to the spacetime they belong in.
 
Back
Top Bottom