roeVwade:Same-sex couples updating legal status after Supreme Court’s decision on abortion (Jay Reeves) [+CNN clip]

[Lacius]

The problem with this line of thinking is that although the uterus is part of your body, the fetus inside it is not part of your body. It is a separate entity with its own body that happens to be inside your body. Since the fetus is a separate entity, this opens a host of questions regarding what rights it might have, when those rights are granted, and how to weigh those rights against the woman's.

Unless we are granting new rights that we don't give to anybody else, nothing you brought up is remotely relevant.

It's also difficult to say that the fetus violates your bodily autonomy, since you essentially invited it to take up residence in your uterus by having unprotected sex.

People get pregnant during protected sex too sometimes. Sometimes, the sex isn't even consensual.

Consent to have sex is not necessarily consent to get pregnant. Consent to get pregnant is not necessarily consent to stay pregnant. So, it doesn't matter.

Even if we ignore this and say that the key issue is that of bodily autonomy, you have to weigh the woman's right to bodily autonomy against the fetus's right to bodily autonomy, as having an abortion will kill it, and killing its body violates its bodily autonomy. If you claim that the fetus has no such right, yet once it's born, the baby will have that right, then you must establish a rule to determine when the fetus gains bodily autonomy rights, since your claim is that it doesn't have them from the beginning.

I wish people would actually learn what bodily autonomy is and isn't. It is not the right to anybody else's body: only your own. Even if we grant a fetus full bodily autonomy rights, it'd be irrelevant to whether or not a woman can have an abortion. Hell, we could grant a zygote full bodily autonomy rights at the moment of conception (I don't), and it wouldn't matter.

These problems are messy, so I think a much cleaner approach is to avoid the topic of bodily autonomy and instead focus on the topic of parental consent.

Bodily autonomy is the entire issue, lol.

Respectfully, it's only messy for those suffering from cognitive dissonance after being presented with the fact that in a consistent world, a loss of bodily autonomy rights for pregnant people is a loss of bodily autonomy rights for everyone.

 

[AleronIves]

A vaccine mandate doesn't violate bodily autonomy unless the government is making it illegal to not be vaccinated. For example, if proof of vaccination is required to enter a nursing home, you have the option of not entering the nursing home.

In that case, an abortion ban doesn't violate bodily autonomy, because you still have the choice to not get pregnant by avoiding sex.

I'm not saying this is a good solution. I'm saying that if we use your logic, government regulations do not violate bodily autonomy as long as you still have a choice to not put yourself in that situation, so neither vaccine mandates nor abortion bans violate bodily autonomy, as you still have a choice in the matter. It's just not the choice you wanted to have.

The point is not whether you have other options. The point is whether the government can violate your bodily autonomy in the name of promoting some other goal, whether it's protecting residents of nursing homes or residents of uteruses.

 

[Lacius]

In that case, an abortion ban doesn't violate bodily autonomy, because you still have the choice to not get pregnant by avoiding sex.

With respect, that was a pretty stupid response on your part. Whether or not you have a choice to get pregnant is irrelevant to whether or not an abortion ban is a violation of bodily autonomy.

"It isn't a violation of bodily autonomy because you could just not want to do that to your body." Lol.

 

[AleronIves]

People get pregnant during protected sex too sometimes. Sometimes, the sex isn't even consensual.

I addressed this in the second half of my post, which you conveniently ignored.

Bodily autonomy is the entire issue, lol.

That's only your opinion. The fact that you're willing to ignore other elements of the situation doesn't mean they don't exist. You just don't care about them, which is why your arguments will never convince the anti-abortion camp.

With respect, that was a pretty stupid response on your part.

It only seems stupid, because you don't understand your own argument.

"It isn't a violation of bodily autonomy because you could just not want to do that to your body."

What? Your point was that the government doesn't violate bodily autonomy as long as you have some other choice in the matter that prevents you from entering the situation where the mandate applies to you. If I don't want to get vaccinated, and vaccination is required to enter nursing homes, then I can choose to not enter nursing homes. This has nothing to do with whether the government can mandate vaccinations as a requirement to enter nursing homes in the first place.

Using your logic, not getting pregnant is a way to avoid the effects of an abortion ban, so the abortion ban isn't violating your bodily autonomy, either. This is nonsense, so your argument is nonsense. Having a method to avoid being affected by a government mandate has nothing to do with whether the government has the right to issue that mandate.

 

[The Catboy]

Why is it that so many cis man just suggests not having sex? Why don't yourself a vasectomy instead? Why is it always about controlling the bodies of AFABs but cis men can just walk around without limits? Do you know how often an AFAB can get pregnant? Once a year, if nothing goes wrong. Do you know how many people cis men can impregnate? Like 2 a day, every single day of the year. Why aren't cis men limited?

 

[Lacius]

That's only your opinion.

Unless you want to live in a world where the state can impose laws restricting bodily autonomy in the name of saving a life, it's your opinion and everybody else's opinion too.

What? Your point was that the government doesn't violate bodily autonomy as long as you have some other choice in the matter that prevents you from entering the situation where the mandate applies to you.

No, that wasn't my point. My point was that something is not a violation of one's bodily autonomy rights as long as the person is free to do or not do whatever they want to their body without somebody suffering legal punishment. If a person cannot get a legal abortion, that's a violation of their bodily autonomy rights. If someone doesn't want to get vaccinated, that isn't a violation of their bodily autonomy as long as they are allowed to legally be unvaccinated.

Whether or not a person has the choice to get pregnant beforehand is wholly irrelevant to whether or not restricting access to legal abortion is a violation of bodily autonomy rights. If you take off your stubborn hat for a moment, you'll understand and you will stop making a fool of yourself.

"Tattoo removals can be illegal and it wouldn't be a violation of bodily autonomy because a person could have just chosen beforehand to not get a tattoo."

"Medical treatments for shark bites can be illegal and not a violation of bodily autonomy because people don't have to get in the ocean."

Lol.

Using your logic, not getting pregnant is a way to avoid the effects of an abortion ban, so the abortion ban isn't violating your bodily autonomy, either. This is nonsense, so your argument is nonsense. Having a method to avoid being affected by a government mandate has nothing to do with whether the government has the right to issue that mandate.

See above. Even with the aforementioned "vaccine mandates," a person can legally be unvaccinated if they want to make that stupid decision. With anti-abortion laws, a pregnant person cannot legally get an abortion. Anyone who looks at this objectively can see one is a violation of bodily autonomy, and the other is not.

Why is it that so many cis man just suggests not having sex? Why don't yourself a vasectomy instead? Why is it always about controlling the bodies of AFABs but cis men can just walk around without limits? Do you know how often an AFAB can get pregnant? Once a year, if nothing goes wrong. Do you know how many people cis men can impregnate? Like 2 a day, every single day of the year. Why aren't cis men limited?

Somehow, it always comes around to somebody accidentally admitting that it's about sex.

 

[Deleted member 559230]

Why is it that so many cis man just suggests not having sex? Why don't yourself a vasectomy instead? Why is it always about controlling the bodies of AFABs but cis men can just walk around without limits? Do you know how often an AFAB can get pregnant? Once a year, if nothing goes wrong. Do you know how many people cis men can impregnate? Like 2 a day, every single day of the year. Why aren't cis men limited?

I'm not sure what a cis man is, but because having sex can get you pregnant is why its brought up. If makes sense if you don't want to get pregnant that you don't have sex. I don't see why the left doesn't think people can't control their impulses and desires ... you know, act like an adult and take responsibility for your actions.

 

[The Catboy]

I'm not sure what a cis man is, but because having sex can get you pregnant is why its brought up. If makes sense if you don't want to get pregnant that you don't have sex. I don't see why the left doesn't think people can't control their impulses and desires ... you know, act like an adult and take responsibility for your actions.

A cis man or cisgender man is a man who was born a guy and agrees that they are a guy. As for the point of my post, is that it's wrong that the conversation only focuses on the group of people who can get only produce one child a year while ignoring the group that can impregnate multiple people a day. Why is the entire conversation about controlling women but never about limiting men's roles in reproduction?

 

[Lacius]

I'm not sure what a cis man is, but because having sex can get you pregnant is why its brought up. If makes sense if you don't want to get pregnant that you don't have sex. I don't see why the left doesn't think people can't control their impulses and desires ... you know, act like an adult and take responsibility for your actions.

A cis man or cisgender man is a man who was born a guy and agrees that they are a guy. As for the point of my post, is that it's wrong that the conversation only focuses on the group of people who can get only produce one child a year while ignoring the group that can impregnate multiple people a day. Why is the entire conversation about controlling women but never about limiting men's roles in reproduction?

If the new precedent is bodily autonomy rights can be violated if it prevents the death of fetuses, then mandatory vasectomies are fair game. Hell, any kind of reproductive sex being illegal becomes fair game.

 

[The Catboy]

If the new precedent is bodily autonomy rights can be violated if it prevents the death of fetuses, then mandatory vasectomies are fair game. Hell, any kind of reproductive sex being illegal becomes fair game.

Are you saying that limiting the rights of men should be fair game? Because I am about it! I think men should have their rights limited just as much as women have them limited. If that's not something they want, then why the fuck do they do it to everyone else?

 

[Lacius]

Are you saying that limiting the rights of men should be fair game? Because I am about it! I think men should have their rights limited just as much as women have them limited. If that's not something they want, then why the fuck do they do it to everyone else?

I normally wouldn't be for violating anybody's bodily autonomy rights, but it seems like fair game to me in this new world of ours. Mandated vasectomies also seem more efficient than anything else, if the goal is to reduce the number of abortions.

 

[The Catboy]

I normally wouldn't be for violating anybody's bodily autonomy rights, but it seems like fair game to me in this new world of ours. Mandated vasectomies also seem more efficient than anything else, if the goal is to reduce the number of abortions.

I am not for it either but if we are in the business of limiting women/AFABs, LGBT+ folks, minorities, and so on, then why not extend that to cis men? It should be perfectly fine to do so.

 

[AleronIves]

Why is it that so many cis man just suggests not having sex?

Please don't straw man me. I brought that up as a way to refute Lacius's argument, not because it's actually a good idea. The whole point is that it's a bad idea, so an argument that could lead to such a conclusion is a bad argument.

Unless you want to live in a world where the state can impose laws restricting bodily autonomy in the name of saving a life

We already live in that world. The government bans certain drugs and assisted suicide, as we've already discussed.

No, that wasn't my point. My point was that something is not a violation of one's bodily autonomy rights as long as the person is free to do or not do whatever they want to their body without somebody suffering legal punishment. If a person cannot get a legal abortion, that's a violation of their bodily autonomy rights. If someone doesn't want to get vaccinated, that isn't a violation of their bodily autonomy as long as they are allowed to legally be unvaccinated.

I apologise for misconstruing your point, but I still think it's wrong. Your requirements for violations of bodily autonomy are too narrow. Requiring people to do one thing with their body in order to do something else is still a violation of bodily autonomy, even if the government doesn't have specific legal punishments in place for violating the rule.

If the government requires you to get a vaccine to go to a public school, the government has still mandated an intrusion into your bodily autonomy as a precondition for school attendance. The fact that the government won't send you to prison for breaking the law and attending a public school without getting vaccinated doesn't change the fact that the law violates your bodily autonomy.

If you take off your stubborn hat for a moment, you'll understand and you will stop making a fool of yourself.

You've been making the same flawed kidney argument for at least two months, had it refuted by multiple people, and refuse to make any concessions, yet I'm the stubborn one here? Also, making ad hominem attacks doesn't help your argument.

 

[Deleted member 559230]

A cis man or cisgender man is a man who was born a guy and agrees that they are a guy. As for the point of my post, is that it's wrong that the conversation only focuses on the group of people who can get only produce one child a year while ignoring the group that can impregnate multiple people a day. Why is the entire conversation about controlling women but never about limiting men's roles in reproduction?

I've never denied it takes a women and man to create a baby. The father is responsible too. It's odd that a lefty acknowledges the fathers role in the pregnancy because most leftist claim that the father has no say in whether or not his baby is aborted.

 

[The Catboy]

Please don't straw man me. I brought that up as a way to refute Lacius's argument, not because it's actually a good idea. The whole point is that it's a bad idea, so an argument that could lead to such a conclusion is a bad argument.

I didn't quote you because it wasn't just about what you said. I will say that it did spark my reason to make my post but it was not directed at your post because I didn't really care to get involved in that part of the conversation.

 

[AleronIves]

it was not directed at your post because I didn't really care to get involved in that part of the conversation.

I appreciate that, but since a) "that part" of the conversation appears to be the entire conversation for the last few pages, and b) I'm the only one who brought up the subject in those pages (unless I missed another relevant post), it was reasonable to conclude that your post was directed at me, even though I was making the point that any argument that leads to such a flawed conclusion as "just don't have sex, then" is a bad argument. Further qualification that your post was not related to the recent conversation would have been appreciated, but I accept your explanation, nonetheless.

 

[The Catboy]

I appreciate that, but since a) "that part" of the conversation appears to be the entire conversation for the last few pages, and b) I'm the only one who brought up the subject in those pages (unless I missed another relevant post), it was reasonable to conclude that your post was directed at me, even though I was making the point that any argument that leads to such a flawed conclusion as "just don't have sex, then" is a bad argument. Further qualification that your post was not related to the recent conversation would have been appreciated, but I accept your explanation, nonetheless.

I do apologize for making you feel targeted. I've been meaning to make that post for several weeks now but kept pushing it off until your post reminded me to copy/paste it from my Google Docs. This really was more of a matter of me not really reading the room and deciding it was time for my soapbox. I will try to make sure I don't do that kind of shit again.

 

[AleronIves]

Yes, in a public discussion thread it is often hard to find an ideal place to interject a point that is relevant to the overall discussion but not to the discussion in the last few pages. I accept your apology, although I wasn't expecting one. It was just a simple misunderstanding.

 

[SG854]

Why is it that so many cis man just suggests not having sex? Why don't yourself a vasectomy instead? Why is it always about controlling the bodies of AFABs but cis men can just walk around without limits? Do you know how often an AFAB can get pregnant? Once a year, if nothing goes wrong. Do you know how many people cis men can impregnate? Like 2 a day, every single day of the year. Why aren't cis men limited?

Probably because the cis men suggesting it are not having sex themselves. So there's no need to get vasectomy.

Not having sex is probably good advice on the man. More so on the man to avoid child support. A woman has the choice of wanting a child or not. But a man doesn't. A man has no say over a women's body. And can be forced to take care of a kid he does not want as long as abortion rights pass. As much as people hate this answer and say it's a stupid answer "abstinence" is the best approach to avoid all this mess, there is no other solution.

 

[LainaGabranth]

I think we should make new vaccines just to mandate their injection. They don't even do anything, we just mandate them. Go big or go home, as I say.