When should the government be able to force surgery on you?

[Luce]

That's because there is none. States might claim "states interest." But that "interest" is never legally defined or specified.

**** state's rights. It was bullshit in antebellum America and it's bullshit now.

Any time you hear people spout off about state's rights, it means they want to take rights away from people. That is the ONLY reason it is ever brought up.

 

[Gordy327]

**** state's rights. It was bullshit in antebellum America and it's bullshit now.

Any time you hear people spout off about state's rights, it means they want to take rights away from people. That is the ONLY reason it is ever brought up.

Agreed.

 

[Elmo]

The really mind turning thing here is that you could be dying and be an exact match for that person whose life you put in need of your organ, be responsible for the accident completely, but on your dying breath say you don't want to donate any of your organs or simply not be an organ donor and they can't take your organs from your dead body to save that person.

yeah, we give bodily autonomy to corpses and take it seriously. Yet so many people think a woman forfeits it because she decided to have sex. Ridiculous.

 

[Elmo]

The military can force a surgery on you to make you fit for duty, and then they can order you to your

Seems @roguenuke has already addressed this claim. I look forward to reading your response to her post. It's #52 in case you missed it.

 

[Elmo]

ahhh this old argument !

force someone to have a surgery to save a life right ? like .. forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy to save the life of the unborn, right ?


of course its a straw man .... but worth entertaining I suppose.

The difference of course is that a pregnancy isn't a surgery,

Pregnancy and birth often come with medically necessary surgery. And even if you want to quibble about semantics, it is undeniable that the potential consequences to women's health are comparable to major surgeries. Those consequences are what matter.

its an innocent human life that is almost always intentionally created with intentional sex and the responsibility there is for both the man and the woman for that unborn life

its not apples to apples

I notice you haven't responded to the poll. It doesn't mention abortion, but it does include options where "intention" and "human life" are important factors. They seem to be very important in your analysis of abortion, so presumably they remain important to you when you consider the more general case?

 

[hecatmoggie]

Pregnancy and birth often come with medically necessary surgery. And even if you want to quibble about semantics, it is undeniable that the potential consequences to women's health are comparable to major surgeries. Those consequences are what matter.

you'd think people would be more careful with having sex/getting preggo right ?

I notice you haven't responded to the poll. It doesn't mention abortion, but it does include options where "intention" and "human life" are important factors. They seem to be very important in your analysis of abortion, so presumably they remain important to you when you consider the more general case?

in the hypothetical given no - Govt shouldn't force people to give blood, donate body parts, etc

no - its not apples to apples at all. Banning killing unborn life isn't anything like a mandatory Govt directed surgery

 

[Gordy327]

you'd think people would be more careful with having sex/getting preggo right ?

Birth control can and does sometimes fail. Clearly they were being careful. But what business is it of yours what consenting adults do?

in the hypothetical given no - Govt shouldn't force people to give blood, donate body parts, etc

Then why is it different for pregnant women? Their bodies are being used to benefit another. If one cannot be forced by the government to donate blood or organs or whatever, why should pregnancy be different in that regard?

no - its not apples to apples at all. Banning killing unborn life isn't anything like a mandatory Govt directed surgery

Yes, it is! The government is effectively mandating one's body be used to benefit another. Its the same thing. By doing so, government is also treating the woman as a ward of the state, which is unconstitutional.

 

[Elmo]

you'd think people would be more careful with having sex/getting preggo right ?

Adult human beings will have sex. It is built into our biology. It is natural and healthy. And no birth control is 100% effective. It is guaranteed that many people will will behave carefully and responsibly, but still end up with an unwanted pregnancy.

If you want to live in a society that oppresses millions of people into forced celibacy, go start it somewhere else. In this country we have basic personal liberty.

in the hypothetical given no - Govt shouldn't force people to give blood, donate body parts, etc

no - its not apples to apples at all. Banning killing unborn life isn't anything like a mandatory Govt directed surgery

When there are only two options, and you ban one of them, that is LOGICALLY IDENTICAL to mandating the other. The two options pregnant women have are abortion, or continue the pregnancy to birth. The latter has major consequences for a woman's health. When you ban abortion, you are forcing those consequences on women. It is a completely fair comparison to the hypothetical in the OP.

 

[trixare4kids]

It's a pretty simple hypothetical. Pretend there is a surgery which will probably not kill you, but carries a real risk of long term harm to your physical and mental health. For the options involving other people, imagine they're harvesting an organ which you don't need to live but could save lives.

Under what conditions should the government be allowed to force you to undergo the operation? What justification/reason would make that use of force moral/ethical in your opinion? Note that the constitution/current law is not relevant to this hypothetical. I'm looking for personal opinions, not legal analysis.

If that's where you are going, normal, vaginal childbirth isn't a surgery.

 

[Elmo]

If that's where you are going, normal, vaginal childbirth isn't a surgery.

Is all birth "normal"? Or do some women have difficult complications during childbirth which require surgical intervention?

If you mandate birth, you are mandating surgery in at least some of those births. So, go back to the hypothetical. Is it reasonable for the government to force surgery on citizens, even to save another person's life?

 

[trixare4kids]

Is all birth "normal"? Or do some women have difficult complications during childbirth which require surgical intervention?

Nothing you're going on about now changes my point.

If you mandate birth, you are mandating surgery in at least some of those births. So, go back to the hypothetical. Is it reasonable for the government to force surgery on citizens, even to save another person's life?

I live in a pro-choice state and so do all of the female members of my family who are free to make these decisions for themselves.

 

[Elmo]

Nothing you're going on about now changes my point.


I live in a pro-choice state and so do all of the female members of my family who are free to make these decisions for themselves.

That's great, I'm happy for you and I hope your right to bodily autonomy is not threatened in the future. Sadly, millions of women are having their rights threatened by overreaching authoritarian state governments. I think such fundamental rights should be protected.

 

[hecatmoggie]

Adult human beings will have sex. It is built into our biology. It is natural and healthy. And no birth control is 100% effective. It is guaranteed that many people will will behave carefully and responsibly, but still end up with an unwanted pregnancy.

that's their choice - its no excuse to kill an innocent human life

If you want to live in a society that oppresses millions of people into forced celibacy, go start it somewhere else. In this country we have basic personal liberty.

nobody said anything about any of that - but responsibility exists for creating human life and that's reasonable

When there are only two options, and you ban one of them, that is LOGICALLY IDENTICAL to mandating the other. The two options pregnant women have are abortion, or continue the pregnancy to birth. The latter has major consequences for a woman's health. When you ban abortion, you are forcing those consequences on women. It is a completely fair comparison to the hypothetical in the OP.

yes, there are consequences to actions - why are liberals so against that ? ban abortion, killing innocent human life is unacceptable and barbaric

 

[Gordy327]

that's their choice - its no excuse to kill an innocent human life


nobody said anything about any of that - but responsibility exists for creating human life and that's reasonable

Says who? What authority? Abortion itself is also being responsible.

yes, there are consequences to actions - why are liberals so against that ? ban abortion, killing innocent human life is unacceptable and barbaric

Mere opinion. See previous statement.

 

[Elmo]

that's their choice - its no excuse to kill an innocent human life


nobody said anything about any of that - but responsibility exists for creating human life and that's reasonable




yes, there are consequences to actions - why are liberals so against that ? ban abortion, killing innocent human life is unacceptable and barbaric

Again, you go back to responsibility and human life as the primary justifications to ban abortion. I covered both those factors in the poll. If you CAUSE a car crash (responsibility) which puts another person at risk of death (human life at stake), should the government be able to violate your bodily autonomy to save that person's life? You have already said that that would be an overreach and violation of your rights (post #81). Which I agree with. But with abortion, you seem to think that a woman should forfeit her rights because she chose to have sex and a human life is at stake.

The two situations are identical in every way that matters. In both examples, a person has responsibility for creating a situation where another life is at stake. Your answer to the question is inconsistent.

 

[hecatmoggie]

Again, you go back to responsibility and human life as the primary justifications to ban abortion. I covered both those factors in the poll. If you CAUSE a car crash (responsibility) which puts another person at risk of death (human life at stake), should the government be able to violate your bodily autonomy to save that person's life?

no, not in my opinion

You have already said that that would be an overreach and violation of your rights (post #81). Which I agree with. But with abortion, you seem to think that a woman should forfeit her rights because she chose to have sex and a human life is at stake.

she made a choice to have sex, which always brings the chance of pregnancy (unless there is a vasectomy etc ) ... she made a choice and with that comes responsibilities. We're not talking about a snickers bar here - its a living human life

absolutely - human life is the most precious thing on the planet above everything else ........... a human life is at stake. Man I thought liberals were all about "if we can save just one life ..... "

The two situations are identical in every way that matters. In both examples, a person has responsibility for creating a situation where another life is at stake. Your answer to the question is inconsistent.

absolutely not

the biggest difference is that the Govt isn't violating a woman's body at all by saying she can't have her unborn baby killed - that's no violation of her body. Its stopping her from having the unborn killed yes

we don't let women have their babies killed 2 minutes after birth because they're an inconvenience do we ? no ... and we shouldn't 2 minutes before either, or 2 days 2 weeks or 2 months .... same unborn innocent human life


what about the victim in your scenario ? assuming the perpetrator is in good health, the right gender, blood type age, etc etc ..... they might not want the perpetrator's organs/body parts. Do they have a choice in the matter? They're the victims aren't they ? Why not ask them what they want ?

 

[VySky]

Speak for yourself, as you have nothing to offer, much less refute what I said

You said abortion is not illegal.

Are you wanting to clarify that?

 

[Gordy327]

You said abortion is not illegal.

Are you wanting to clarify that?

Nothing to clarify. It was straightforward and factually correct.

 

[Elmo]

no, not in my opinion




she made a choice to have sex, which always brings the chance of pregnancy (unless there is a vasectomy etc ) ... she made a choice and with that comes responsibilities. We're not talking about a snickers bar here - its a living human life

absolutely - human life is the most precious thing on the planet above everything else ........... a human life is at stake. Man I thought liberals were all about "if we can save just one life ..... "

"she made a choice to have sex to drive recklessly, which always brings the chance of pregnancy (unless there is a vasectomy etc ) a dangerous car crash... she made a choice and with that comes responsibilities. We're not talking about a snickers bar here - its a living human life"

To be clear, I'm not mimicing you just to be annoying. I'm making the same point that I've been trying to make for several posts. All the reasons YOU provide for WHY a pregnant woman should lose her right to bodily autonomy ALSO apply to the hypothetical car crash scenario. In both cases, choices are made by the perpetrator. When another life is put at risk by those choices, the perpetrator has responsibility in both scenarios.

Yet, in one scenario you think the perpetrator should forfeit their rights, and in the other you don't. So what is the reason we should treat the two scenarios differently? It is clearly not about a human life, and clearly not about responsibility. What is it?

absolutely not

the biggest difference is that the Govt isn't violating a woman's body at all by saying she can't have her unborn baby killed - that's no violation of her body. Its stopping her from having the unborn killed yes

we don't let women have their babies killed 2 minutes after birth because they're an inconvenience do we ? no ... and we shouldn't 2 minutes before either, or 2 days 2 weeks or 2 months .... same unborn innocent human life

I have already explained why restricting abortion is equivalent to violating a woman's bodily autonomy. It's very simple logic, and your repeated opinions do not refute it in any way. I won't repeat myself so I recommend you review my prior posts.

what about the victim in your scenario ? assuming the perpetrator is in good health, the right gender, blood type age, etc etc ..... they might not want the perpetrator's organs/body parts. Do they have a choice in the matter? They're the victims aren't they ? Why not ask them what they want ?

Fine. It's my scenario. The perpetrator is in good health. The victim does want the organ. In fact the victim NEEDS the organ. It is the only way he will survive.

 

[hecatmoggie]

"she made a choice to have sex to drive recklessly, which always brings the chance of pregnancy (unless there is a vasectomy etc ) a dangerous car crash... she made a choice and with that comes responsibilities. We're not talking about a snickers bar here - its a living human life"

that's right - and the consequences are heavy fines, revoking drivers license, her death, ... even prison if what she does it bad enough

To be clear, I'm not mimicing you just to be annoying. I'm making the same point that I've been trying to make for several posts. All the reasons YOU provide for WHY a pregnant woman should lose her right to bodily autonomy ALSO apply to the hypothetical car crash scenario. In both cases, choices are made by the perpetrator. When another life is put at risk by those choices, the perpetrator has responsibility in both scenarios.

no no, I very much enjoy discussions, I'll answer everything

no, it does NOT apply because the Govt isn't forcing a woman to have a surgery - they're forcing her to not kill an unborn child

what you really want as an example if Logan's Run ..... Govt killing people for population control

or

the Govt mandating women having their babies killed in the womb - that's a fair example to your automobile/forcing surgery etc example

Yet, in one scenario you think the perpetrator should forfeit their rights, and in the other you don't. So what is the reason we should treat the two scenarios differently? It is clearly not about a human life, and clearly not about responsibility. What is it?

what right is forfeited by a woman not being allowed to have her child killed ? we NEVER allow that after birth but other than being born the situations are identical in the responsibility/burden a child carries (which is 95% of all abortions, convenience)

women have no Right to have their unborn child killed - it doesn't exist

I have already explained why restricting abortion is equivalent to violating a woman's bodily autonomy. It's very simple logic, and your repeated opinions do not refute it in any way. I won't repeat myself so I recommend you review my prior posts.

you did and it doesn't make any sense and its not logical at all

Fine. It's my scenario. The perpetrator is in good health. The victim does want the organ. In fact the victim NEEDS the organ. It is the only way he will survive.

its not about need - are you going to have the Govt for the living person who's going to die ? are you going to take their choice away ?

see, you have to do BOTH ........ the Govt would have to force BOTH sides in your scenario. ( the victim of the crash is the unborn baby )


I will say this - at least you admit the unborn baby is a living human person - most pro-abortion people do not

 

[Elmo]

that's right - and the consequences are heavy fines, revoking drivers license, her death, ... even prison if what she does it bad enough

Right, there are consequences to reckless behavior. But none of those consequences would involve the loss of her bodily autonomy. If this scenario happened in real life, and she refused to donate her organs, that would be the end of it. The victim would die, we would talk about how tragic the whole thing is, and she would probably go to jail for her behavior.

But the government would NOT take her organs against her will to save her victim. The principle of bodily autonomy is simply more important than her victims' life. And it seems like we both agree with that principle.

no no, I very much enjoy discussions, I'll answer everything

no, it does NOT apply because the Govt isn't forcing a woman to have a surgery - they're forcing her to not kill an unborn child

what you really want as an example if Logan's Run ..... Govt killing people for population control

or

the Govt mandating women having their babies killed in the womb - that's a fair example to your automobile/forcing surgery etc example

you did and it doesn't make any sense and its not logical at all

Ok, listen. You have a choice between an apple or a banana for lunch. If I take away the banana, you no longer have a choice. The apple is the only remaining option. If I leave the banana around, but force you to pick the apple, the outcome is identical. You have an apple for lunch.

When there are only two options, a BAN and a MANDATE are exactly the same thing. Pregnant women have only two options: abortion or birth. A ban on abortion is logically identical to forced birth.

what right is forfeited by a woman not being allowed to have her child killed ? we NEVER allow that after birth but other than being born the situations are identical in the responsibility/burden a child carries (which is 95% of all abortions, convenience)

women have no Right to have their unborn child killed - it doesn't exist

No, the situations are entirely different. After birth, a baby can be cared for WITHOUT infringing on the mother's rights at all. Because it is no longer biologically dependent on her. It can be given up for adoption or otherwise cared for by someone else who is willing.

This is not possible for a fetus in the womb. It cannot survive without the support of the mother's body. This comes at a COST to the mother. Every day is a sacrifice. Further, the two cannot be separated without the mother going through birth. And as I have already discussed, birth can involve medically necessary surgeries. It can also be traumatic. Therefore, if the mother is unwilling, it is necessary to CHOOSE between the rights of the fetus, and the rights of the mother. I will choose the mother every time, which I think is consistent with my first point in this post. The principle of bodily autonomy is simply more important than a person's life.

Now, if there was some way to magically teleport the fetus out of the womb, without inflicting extra trauma or risk on the mother, we would no longer have to choose! In that situation, the comparison to killing a baby after birth would be fair.

its not about need - are you going to have the Govt for the living person who's going to die ? are you going to take their choice away ?

see, you have to do BOTH ........ the Govt would have to force BOTH sides in your scenario. ( the victim of the crash is the unborn baby )


I will say this - at least you admit the unborn baby is a living human person - most pro-abortion people do not

I do not understand these questions. But as to the last point, I do not consider a fetus to be equivalent to a baby. I do not think it should have the same rights as a baby. I am accepting the anti-abortion position on that point for the sake of argument. I am saying that even if the fetus is a person, it's rights should not supercede the bodily autonomy rights of the mother.

 

[hecatmoggie]

Right, there are consequences to reckless behavior. But none of those consequences would involve the loss of her bodily autonomy.

that's exactly the burden women bear since they're the ones getting preggo

If this scenario happened in real life, and she refused to donate her organs, that would be the end of it. The victim would die, we would talk about how tragic the whole thing is, and she would probably go to jail for her behavior.

apples to oranges

But the government would NOT take her organs against her will to save her victim. The principle of bodily autonomy is simply more important than her victims' life. And it seems like we both agree with that principle.

that's not the principle - in your world of bodily autonomy a woman can walk away from a newborn and allow it to die - her choice right ?

Ok, listen. You have a choice between an apple or a banana for lunch. If I take away the banana, you no longer have a choice. The apple is the only remaining option. If I leave the banana around, but force you to pick the apple, the outcome is identical. You have an apple for lunch.

that's correct

When there are only two options, a BAN and a MANDATE are exactly the same thing. Pregnant women have only two options: abortion or birth. A ban on abortion is logically identical to forced birth.

except I'm not making you eat a banana or an apple, in fact I'll gladly let you choose if you want to eat or not and which you want. However, you don't get to choose to eat and choose one then one bite later change your mind and throw it away

choices - have sex, don't have sex

women have that choice

No, the situations are entirely different. After birth, a baby can be cared for WITHOUT infringing on the mother's rights at all. Because it is no longer biologically dependent on her. It can be given up for adoption or otherwise cared for by someone else who is willing.

OMG you'd infringe someone ELSE to take care of it ? why ? that has NOTHING to do with the woman's bodily autonomy and while not "biologically dependent" the baby IS 100% dependent on the mother

This is not possible for a fetus in the womb. It cannot survive without the support of the mother's body. This comes at a COST to the mother. Every day is a sacrifice. Further, the two cannot be separated without the mother going through birth. And as I have already discussed, birth can involve medically necessary surgeries. It can also be traumatic. Therefore, if the mother is unwilling, it is necessary to CHOOSE between the rights of the fetus, and the rights of the mother. I will choose the mother every time, which I think is consistent with my first point in this post. The principle of bodily autonomy is simply more important than a person's life.

newborns cannot live without support either

and you just made another posters argument .... each say IS a sacrifice, each day is a lot of work, time, dedication .... women should be able to have their babies killed for days, maybe even weeks after birth if they're too much a burden/inconvenience. They're not difference really than unborn babies - and yes, some people have that opinion here

Now, if there was some way to magically teleport the fetus out of the womb, without inflicting extra trauma or risk on the mother, we would no longer have to choose! In that situation, the comparison to killing a baby after birth would be fair.

I do not understand these questions. But as to the last point, I do not consider a fetus to be equivalent to a baby. I do not think it should have the same rights as a baby. I am accepting the anti-abortion position on that point for the sake of argument. I am saying that even if the fetus is a person, it's rights should not supercede the bodily autonomy rights of the mother.

call it a baby, a fetus, a puppy ... its irrelevant the word you use

its the unborn human in a pregnancy, its alive and human - biological fact

we disagree on the value of human life - and because of that, I will forever fight for the unborns who cannot fight for themselves

 

[Elmo]

that's exactly the burden women bear since they're the ones getting preggo



apples to oranges

You still have not given a coherent reason why it is apples to oranges. Repeating the claim does not make it true.

that's not the principle - in your world of bodily autonomy a woman can walk away from a newborn and allow it to die - her choice right ?

False, as I very clearly explained. If you're not going to bother to try to understand my posts, I won't bother clarifying.

that's correct

except I'm not making you eat a banana or an apple, in fact I'll gladly let you choose if you want to eat or not and which you want. However, you don't get to choose to eat and choose one then one bite later change your mind and throw it away

choices - have sex, don't have sex

women have that choice

There it is folks, the core belief behind the anti abortion movement. People should just never have sex unless they intend to procreate. Good old puritanical nonsense, hundreds of years out of date. If only anti-abortion politicians were this honest, they would all be laughed out of office.

OMG you'd infringe someone ELSE to take care of it ? why ? that has NOTHING to do with the woman's bodily autonomy and while not "biologically dependent" the baby IS 100% dependent on the mother

newborns cannot live without support either

and you just made another posters argument .... each say IS a sacrifice, each day is a lot of work, time, dedication .... women should be able to have their babies killed for days, maybe even weeks after birth if they're too much a burden/inconvenience. They're not difference really than unborn babies - and yes, some people have that opinion here

Adoption is voluntary, and infringes on no one. A newborn can be given the support it needs without threatening anyone's rights, which is what makes it so different from a fetus. You're resorting to a hysterical strawman, and outright lying about my position. This conversation is done, goodbye.

call it a baby, a fetus, a puppy ... its irrelevant the word you use

its the unborn human in a pregnancy, its alive and human - biological fact

we disagree on the value of human life - and because of that, I will forever fight for the unborns who cannot fight for themselves

 

[hecatmoggie]

You still have not given a coherent reason why it is apples to oranges. Repeating the claim does not make it true.

you're trying to create an analogy of the Govt not allowing killing an unborn life to forcing someone into surgery - two exceptionally different things

False, as I very clearly explained. If you're not going to bother to try to understand my posts, I won't bother clarifying.

just stretch bodily autonomy a little bit more - why should you be burdened with a newborn crying all the time? taking your money up? impacting others in the household? you're losing sleep. All valid reasons just to have it killed or allow it to die - its impacting YOUR LIFE right ?

There it is folks, the core belief behind the anti abortion movement. People should just never have sex unless they intend to procreate. Good old puritanical nonsense, hundreds of years out of date. If only anti-abortion politicians were this honest, they would all be laughed out of office.

I never said that

I said if you're going to have sex, know the consequences and be ready to accept them.

I look at other things in life the same way. Commit adultery if you want to, but be ready to be called what you are if you do. Smoke if you want to but be ready for lung cancer. Eat huge amounts of food and don't exercise but be ready for obesity. Actions = consequences