[ckaihatsu]

Does the truth and logic matter, or only what that truth and logic are being used to support?

You're talking about means-and-ends, and I just happened to have created a basic *chart* for this, for another topic:


Means and Ends CHART

Spoiler: show

[Puffer Fish]

I would say that their bodily rights are violated since the choice of using their body to create a life has been taken from them.

At least from your perspective, it's easier to argue the woman has a right to not create a life than to argue she has a right to create it, wouldn't you agree?

I questioned whether creating life is really a bodily right, since the new life she is creating is not part of her body.

That would be like saying I have the right to have sex with someone, and when you kill that person, you are violating my bodily rights because I can no longer use my body to have sex with them.
It's a totally absurd rationality (in my opinion).

The fact that the fetus will have a bodily effect on her is not in itself reason to say that she has a bodily right to it.

Unless you are trying to argue that a woman somehow has right to motherhood, but that is something else, that is not necessarily bodily rights, and even in that case, society and the law recognises there are many cases in fact where a woman may not have the right to motherhood.

[Puffer Fish]

No one has inherent rights. Rights exist as social constructs.

That is where we disagree. There are many in this forum who believe in the concept of Natural Rights.

Individual human rights that exist, or should exist, because they are self-evident. (or endowed to humanity by a Creator, but I won't go into that here)

What you are talking about is the concept of moral relativism. Where there are no absolutes. Everything is the way it is because society and government have decided it should be that way. Often on a whim.

If we went according to your philosophy, then to say a woman had "bodily rights" would be no more meaningful than to say that abortion is legal. Because they wouldn't really mean anything different.

[Pants-of-dog]

At least from your perspective, it's easier to argue the woman has a right to not create a life than to argue she has a right to create it, wouldn't you agree?

No, I would not agree at all.

I questioned whether creating life is really a bodily right, since the new life she is creating is not part of her body.

The reproductive right to choose to use one’s body to create another life (or not) is a bodily right because it happens inside the body of the pregnant person. It has nothing to do with whether or not the fetus is part of the pregnant person’s body.

That would be like saying I have the right to have sex with someone, and when you kill that person, you are violating my bodily rights because I can no longer use my body to have sex with them.
It's a totally absurd rationality (in my opinion).

This is an absurd comparison since the person being killed is not inside the hypothetical woman.

The fact that the fetus will have a bodily effect on her is not in itself reason to say that she has a bodily right to it.

1. No one is saying that the pregnant person has a right to the fetus.

2. No one is saying that the pregnant person’s rights derive from the fact that hte unborn person is “having an effect” on the pregnant person.

Unless you are trying to argue that a woman somehow has right to motherhood, but that is something else, that is not necessarily bodily rights, and even in that case, society and the law recognises there are many cases in fact where a woman may not have the right to motherhood.

No, I am not arguing that.

[Puffer Fish]

Choice, when discussing abortion, means having the choice of what to do with one’s own body. It is impossible to separate the two.

It seems to me you are conflating the two.

I was trying to create a hypothetical example (or a thought experiment) that would separate the two.

If not completely, then as much as possible.

In the same way, reproductive rights are a subset of bodily rights.

How do you reckon that?

First, it is easy enough to concede (for the time being here, temporarily just for the sake of argument, to help make things simple) that doing something to a part of her body messes with her bodily rights.

But what about the aspects (theoretical as they may be) of her reproduction that are not a part of her body?

I mean, would you argue for example that if the father has joint custody of the baby, it infringes on her reproductive rights because she can't breastfeed the baby?
Is that the extent to which you would take this?


Let's not fall into making the automatic assumption that just because something is taking place geographically inside her body, that it is a part of her body.
(Pregnancy is a kind of unusual situation in that regard)
(Which I don't think you are making)

It is impossible to separate these two in reality.

It may be impossible to separate them in reality, but my hypothetical (thought experiment) was to demonstrate a point.

Which would then allow us to make a logical deduction.


Something doesn't actually have to be possible in reality to be relevant in a logical argument. Think about all the insights Einstein had through his "thought experiments" like what would happen if you could ride on a ray of light what you would see.

[Puffer Fish]

1. No one is saying that the pregnant person has a right to the fetus.

2. No one is saying that the pregnant person’s rights derive from the fact that hte unborn person is “having an effect” on the pregnant person.

Well, then could you explain why you appear to be making the argument that the fetus is a part of her reproduction and thus part of her bodily rights?

This is an absurd comparison since the person being killed is not inside the hypothetical woman.

Oh, so now the situation is somehow totally different if they are inside them?

The reproductive right to choose to use one’s body to create another life (or not) is a bodily right because it happens inside the body of the pregnant person. It has nothing to do with whether or not the fetus is part of the pregnant person’s body.

Am I wrong here to observe you seem to be making a "geometric" argument? Where your argument seems to be deriving entirely from the fact of physical location?

[Pants-of-dog]

Well, then could you explain why you appear to be making the argument that the fetus is a part of her reproduction and thus part of her bodily rights?

I am not making the argument that the fetus is a part of the pregnant person. I have consistently held that the fetus is a separate person with all the rights that anyone has.

Oh, so now the situation is somehow totally different if they are inside them?

Yes. Exactly.

Am I wrong here to observe you seem to be making a "geometric" argument? Where your argument seems to be deriving entirely from the fact of physical location?

It is not entirely derived from location. It is also based on the fact that the unborn person is using the pregnant person’s body to stay alive, and it is also based on the fact that the pregnant person is choosing to have this relationship with the unborn person.

It seems to me you are conflating the two.

I was trying to create a hypothetical example (or a thought experiment) that would separate the two.

If not completely, then as much as possible.

It may be impossible to separate them in reality, but my hypothetical (thought experiment) was to demonstrate a point.

Which would then allow us to make a logical deduction.

Something doesn't actually have to be possible in reality to be relevant in a logical argument. Think about all the insights Einstein had through his "thought experiments" like what would happen if you could ride on a ray of light what you would see.

If yiur hypothetical situation separates the two, then your hypothetical situation becomes so unrealistic that it is no longer useful as an argument.

How do you reckon that?

First, it is easy enough to concede (for the time being here, temporarily just for the sake of argument, to help make things simple) that doing something to a part of her body messes with her bodily rights.

But what about the aspects (theoretical as they may be) of her reproduction that are not a part of her body?

Let's not fall into making the automatic assumption that just because something is taking place geographically inside her body, that it is a part of her body.
(Pregnancy is a kind of unusual situation in that regard)
(Which I don't think you are making)

I am not making the argument that the fetus is a part of the pregnant person. I have consistently held that the fetus is a separate person with all the rights that anyone has.

The reproductive right to choose to use one’s body to create another life (or not) is a bodily right because it happens inside the body of the pregnant person. It has nothing to do with whether or not the fetus is part of the pregnant person’s body.

It is also based on the fact that the unborn person is using the pregnant person’s body to stay alive, and it is also based on the fact that the pregnant person is choosing to have this relationship with the unborn person.

[ckaihatsu]

How US abortion policy targets the poor _ 2020 Election

[Puffer Fish]

How US abortion policy targets the poor _ 2020 Election

You seem to be throwing red herrings and deflections into this thread.
This thread is not about (or was not intended to be about) the Abortion issue in general. It is specifically about the ethics and morality of one specific aspect of Abortion.

If we tried to argue over everything about Abortion in one thread, I don't think the arguments would ever really get anywhere.
Or at least they'd be very unfocused. It would be impossible to really have any coherent discussion.

[ckaihatsu]

You seem to be throwing red herrings and deflections into this thread.
This thread is not about (or was not intended to be about) the Abortion issue in general. It is specifically about the ethics and morality of one specific aspect of Abortion.

If we tried to argue over everything about Abortion in one thread, I don't think the arguments would ever really get anywhere.
Or at least they'd be very unfocused. It would be impossible to really have any coherent discussion.

Let's just call it a 'subthread' of potential discussion.

[Godstud]

So legalize abortion, like in Canada, and then abortion can't be aimed at a certain demographic.

[ccdan]

Do you think the penalty for killing inside the womb should be less than killing outside the womb?
I mean when the killing took place without the woman's permission. Some other person came along and caused the fetus to die.

Obviously. It's not really killing, it's causing a forced abortion. Something like that.

[Puffer Fish]

Obviously. It's not really killing, it's causing a forced abortion. Something like that.

In other words, let's only think about the woman here.

[ccdan]

In other words, let's only think about the woman here.

There's absolutely no one else to think about. Those who claim otherwise don't have a very high IQ and likely believe in imaginary friends and other non-existent things.