SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Edge-]

Go announce you plan to commit suicide and see how much bodily autonomy you have.

Moving goalposts, I see. But this is a tricky situation, because while I fully support people having the right to end their life if they choose, they need to be of sound mind when making that decision. Someone who is severely depressed is not exactly in a mental state where they can make that decision - something I'm intimately familiar with personally.

No you are assuming organ donation and donating to science are the same thing. That's two separate conversations.

I'm not assuming they're the same thing, hence why I reference them separately. Organ donation is one aspect, donating to science is a separate aspect. My body might not be super useful in a medical school if it's missing a bunch of organs, at which point something like a body farm might be a more effective use for it.

If I make arrangements for both (I've already done the former, officially registered as an organ donor), my family cannot override that decision upon my death.

[Elegiac]

If that was all it covered you would be right but the fact roe was over turned means you are probably wrong about things in some states.

"You can't claim that abortion is about bodily autonomy because some states are christofascist shitholes" is a nonce argument. Rofl.

[Moadar]

Moving goalposts, I see. But this is a tricky situation, because while I fully support people having the right to end their life if they choose, they need to be of sound mind when making that decision. Someone who is severely depressed is not exactly in a mental state where they can make that decision - something I'm intimately familiar with personally.



I'm not assuming they're the same thing, hence why I reference them separately. Organ donation is one aspect, donating to science is a separate aspect. My body might not be super useful in a medical school if it's missing a bunch of organs, at which point something like a body farm might be a more effective use for it.

If I make arrangements for both (I've already done the former, officially registered as an organ donor), my family cannot override that decision upon my death.

They can override it. In some cases the service just won't fight for it. In case of donating to science or body farm then it's a lot more simple for them. The organ donation is different and depends on which service governs the area you are in. I'm intimately familiar with CORE and life net.

- - - Updated - - -

Neither of those are about bodily autonomy.

You're really just demonstrating you don't understand the topic.

Edit: I'll also note that attempting suicide isn't even illegal in most countries. Certainly isn't in the USA.

'Bodily integrity is the inviolability of the physical body and emphasizes the importance of personal autonomy, self-ownership, and self-determination of human beings over their own bodies."

How is suicide not self determination?

- - - Updated - - -

"You can't claim that abortion is about bodily autonomy because some states are christofascist shitholes" is a nonce argument. Rofl.

Again that's just your opinion until it aligns with the law.

[Endus]

Bodily integrity is the inviolability of the physical body and emphasizes the importance of personal autonomy, self-ownership, and self-determination of human beings over their own bodies."

How is suicide not self determination?

"Over their own bodies". Suicide is specifically about your life. You also have a right to life, but in most of the world, you also have the right to end that life. Despite your suggestion otherwise.

Multiple rights existing is not an argument that bodily autonomy does not.

[Elegiac]

Again that's just your opinion until it aligns with the law.

Congratulations on successfully identifying the difference between an is and an ought argument.

You've still continually failed to provide reasons why abortion ought not to be available past a certain point besides conservative strawmen.

[Moadar]

Congratulations on successfully identifying the difference between an is and an ought argument.

You've still continually failed to provide reasons why abortion ought not to be available past a certain point besides conservative strawmen.

I did provide a reason. You are infringing on the bodily autonomy of another being past a certain point.

[Endus]

I did provide a reason. You are infringing on the bodily autonomy of another being past a certain point.

That point is "birth", legally speaking. At which point there's no longer a conflict.

Also, no, even if we considered the fetus to be a person, removing it from the uterus before term would not, under any circumstances, constitute a violation of its bodily autonomy.

[Elegiac]

I did provide a reason. You are infringing on the bodily autonomy of another being past a certain point.

Why should bodily autonomy entitle you to the use of another person's body to sustain yourself without their consent, exactly?

[Moadar]

That point is "birth", legally speaking. At which point there's no longer a conflict.

Also, no, even if we considered the fetus to be a person, removing it from the uterus before term would not, under any circumstances, constitute a violation of its bodily autonomy.

Removing by what methods? If you consider a fetus a person then surely sucking it out piece by piece is a violation.

Injecting digoxin into a baby at 25 weeks is also surely a violation as well.

- - - Updated - - -

Why should bodily autonomy entitle you to the use of another person's body to sustain yourself without their consent, exactly?

You either believe in bodily autonomy or you don't. Let me know when you make up your mind love.

[Endus]

Removing by what methods?

See, this is you moving goalposts.

Abortion is ending a pregnancy. It's not killing the fetus. That often happens anyway, but it's not a requirement.

If you consider a fetus a person then surely sucking it out piece by piece is a violation.

Injecting digoxin into a baby at 25 weeks is also surely a violation as well.

It's neither a person nor a baby. And I have no reason to entertain religious arguments to the contrary. And they're all religious arguments.

Edit: Even if I wanted to entertain it, you're just arguing about abortion methods, not abortion rights.

[Elegiac]

You either believe in bodily autonomy or you don't.

Nice non-argument.

I'm asking you a question of what you think the scope of bodily autonomy should be. Or is that too difficult for you?

[Moadar]

See, this is you moving goalposts.

Abortion is ending a pregnancy. It's not killing the fetus. That often happens anyway, but it's not a requirement.



It's neither a person nor a baby. And I have no reason to entertain religious arguments to the contrary. And they're all religious arguments.

That's not moving goalposts, that's looking at the concept in detail.

Just because you say so doesn't make it so.

- - - Updated - - -

Nice non-argument.

I'm asking you a question of what you think the scope of bodily autonomy should be. Or is that too difficult for you?

You act as if there is any benefit in answering you especially when you can't even decide that for yourself.

[Endus]

That's not moving goalposts, that's looking at the concept in detail.

Just because you say so doesn't make it so.

Where did I ever rely on my say-so?

Legally speaking, a fetus is neither a person nor a baby.

[Moadar]

Where did I ever rely on my say-so?

Legally speaking, a fetus is neither a person nor a baby.

That's fine but you said "even if we consider a fetus a person" and then got huffy when I showed the methods of removal would violate bodily autonomy.

[Elegiac]

You act as if there is any benefit in answering

I.e. you don't have an answer. Good to know.

when you can't even decide that for yourself.

I've been abundantly clear in my position that the scope of bodily autonomy ends at the point where it involves using someone else's body to sustain your life without their explicit consent because the alternative sets nasty precedents regarding things like organ and blood donation.

Meanwhile, you seem to be having trouble justifying your position beyond 'because I say so', which indicates to me that it's not actually a position derived from you thinking about the subject very hard.

[Endus]

That's fine but you said "even if we consider a fetus a person" and then got huffy when I showed the methods of removal would violate bodily autonomy.

You're right. I should never have even entertained the obviously-bullshit argument to begin with.

A fetus isn't a person, nor a baby, and has no rights. Engaging in baseless what-ifs about a piece of religious dogma is not useful discussion.

[uuuhname]

I'm patiently waiting for any religious organization that isn't explicitly (evangelical) Christian to bring a case for the religious right to an abortion to become national news.

I simply cannot wait to see the reactions then

[Moadar]

I.e. you don't have an answer. Good to know.



I've been abundantly clear in my position that the scope of bodily autonomy ends at the point where it involves using someone else's body to sustain your life without their explicit consent.

Barring rape, you gave consent when you went through the mating process and then allowed it keep forming despite things like the morning after pill.

- - - Updated - - -

You're right. I should never have even entertained the obviously-bullshit argument to begin with.

A fetus isn't a person, nor a baby, and has no rights. Engaging in baseless what-ifs about a piece of religious dogma is not useful discussion.

The what if was your idea buddy.

[Mekh]

That's fine but you said "even if we consider a fetus a person" and then got huffy when I showed the methods of removal would violate bodily autonomy.

Removal of people regularly gets violent. When in doubt, say the fetus had a gun.

[Moadar]

Removal of people regularly gets violent. When in doubt, say the fetus had a gun.

Just date a cop.