You aren't the only one here being stupid, but you are the worst offender.

You appear to argue here and elsewhere that abortion should be a right for any woman for any reason, at almost any time, anywhere, regardless of the potential personhood of the fetus they carry. This argument is absurd.

First off, the freedom to kill seems to imply the freedom to harm in this context; after all, you go so far as to say a woman is a slave to the fetus inside her if we give said fetus any of its own rights. If the woman’s bodily autonomy totally overrides the rights of the fetus then why isn’t she allowed to drink alcohol while pregnant? Is it because the fascists seek to control women’s bodies?

No - it is because it is deplorable and would make you a fucking asshole, as does killing a genuine philosophical person for no compelling reason.

Others in this thread have pointed out that we do indeed regulate what goes in and out of peoples’ bodies. What about forcing people to get the vaccine? How many of you were in favor of that? Many of you, iirc. I actually agree that mandating the vaccine would be a good, but according to some of the specific logic applied to abortion no one should ever be forced to get a vaccine - even if it would save lives. How do you guys square that?

I concede I’ll never have to worry about getting an abortion, and women should indisputably be able to get abortions for rape, incest, serious psychological reasons, etc. at any point in a pregnancy, but the bodily autonomy argument is not so great unless one follows it to all of its conclusions. Or one can just continue to tilt at windmills, saving women from fetal slavery one grammatically impenetrable post at a time.

You aren't the only one here being stupid, but you are the worst offender — ToothyMaw

Your vacuous projection is duely noted.

This is a good point that I had not thought about before; however, you aren’t going to like my refurbishment (of my view) here (;

I would say that you are right insofar as I cannot say that the obligation to not abort (in the case of consensual sex) is contingent in any manner on ‘reasonably anticipated’ consequences of ones actions. For example, if this were true (that I could make them contingent), then I should never go driving, because there is a small percentage chance, even with taking all the precautions, that I could injure someone in a manner that would be my fault. Likewise, there is a small percentage chance that people having sex while taking every precautionary measures (like contraceptives) will conceive.

My resolution is to say that the obligation to sustain that life (of which their condition one is culpable for) is contingent solely on one’s culpability and not ‘reasonable inferences’ pertaining to the consequences of ones actions. Thusly, in the case of driving, I am accepting that there is a chance that I may be at fault for another person’s injuries (due to, let’s say, a car crash or something) and, in that event, I cannot appeal to the fact that I took a lot of precautionary measures to prevent injuring people with my care to get out of the obligation to help this person that I am, in fact, culpable for their injuries. Same thing is true, I would say, for consensual sex: appealing to all of the precautionary measures they took to prevent conception does not exempt them from their obligation to sustain that new life, since they are culpable for it.

Curious that you never considered the single most common type of sexual encounter between heterosexual partners (consensual while using BC).

As to your reconfiguring your opinion/theory, in typical modern fashion, the intended conclusion is maintained while adjusting for inconvenient new data by fiddling around with the argument to keep it all "consistent".

Lastly, in your car wreck injury example most agree that "taking responsibility" for causing the accident takes the form of helping the victim. Just so you know, there is not a consensus (despite your assertion) that "taking responsibility" for an unintended pregnancy should solely be in the form of carrying it to term.

Hello LuckyR,

Curious that you never considered the single most common type of sexual encounter between heterosexual partners (consensual while using BC).

It isn’t that I haven’t thought of the scenario where one uses contraceptives but, rather, that I hadn’t thought about how that ties to my often claim about having the obligation to keep the fetus ‘when it is reasonably inferred’ that one will conceive; as the probability of conception is, indeed, irrelevant to my argument.

As to your reconfiguring your opinion/theory, in typical modern fashion, the intended conclusion is maintained while adjusting for inconvenient new data by fiddling around with the argument to keep it all "consistent".

To demonstrate that this is not the case, I encourage your to re-read my OP, as I never refurbished any of it after conceding this point with you, and you will notice that none of the conclusions depended on any ‘reasonable inferences of conceiving from the act’. For consensual sex, as an example, I invoked culpability—and this still applies in the case of using contraceptives.

Lastly, in your car wreck injury example most agree that "taking responsibility" for causing the accident takes the form of helping the victim. Just so you know, there is not a consensus (despite your assertion) that "taking responsibility" for an unintended pregnancy should solely be in the form of carrying it to term.

Two things:

1. Of course there isn’t a consensus: abortion is a hot topic right now! I was never intending to claim that there was.

2. I was never intending to claim that an “’taking responsibility’ for an unintended pregnancy should solely be in the form of carrying it to term”: I said “Amending the situation entails, by my lights, that what is the most feasible and reasonable means of amending the situation (viz., protecting and saving the life in this case) must be taken.”. I am claiming that whatever is most reasonable for amending the situation must be taken, which does not exclude other alternatives in the future (such as artificial wombs), and the very last thing that would amend it is to kill the fetus.

Within the conversation of abortion, I am assessing the most basic abortion scenarios in relation to some general moral principles… — Bob Ross

The female has the right to do what she would like with the life that she is bearing, but that has absolutely no bearing upon what a man will consider for that life.

I personally would view abortion as immoral due to the sanctity of human life.

I would make sure that whomever I am having a child with share the same moral views.

In the end, every relationship is built upon trust. She will try to create love but the foundation must always be trust, lest there be one broken heart, rather than two. :broken:

Hello chiknsld,

The female has the right to do what she would like with the life that she is bearing

I disagree: why would she have that sort of absolute right to bodily autonomy?

I personally would view abortion as immoral due to the sanctity of human life.

I see. I think that the right life, just like the right to bodily autonomy, is not feasible as an absolute principle (either).

I would make sure that whomever I am having a child with share the same moral views.

I understand, but what about someone you had no intention of having children with? Someone with whom you were using Birth Control with, just for hooking up purposes?

I understand, but what about someone you had no intention of having children with? Someone with whom you were using Birth Control with, just for hooking up purposes? — LuckyR

In such a case it is ultimately her choice.

My responsibility comes beforehand, making sure we both share the same moral outlook.

Hi Bob :)

I disagree: why would she have that sort of absolute right to bodily autonomy? — Bob Ross

Bob, we all have the right to our own body, otherwise it would be a conflict of interest. :blush:

I see. I think that the right life, just like the right to bodily autonomy, is not feasible as an absolute principle (either). — Bob Ross

Moral principles might not hold in every situation within a relatively complex society such as ours.

Bob, we all have the right to our own body, otherwise it would be a conflict of interest. :blush:

I disagree. Let me give you an example and let me know your take on it. Let's say there's just me and a little kid at a pool (and I don't know this kid)(no lifeguards: nothing other than us two). I am dangling my feet in the water and the kid starts drowning in the deep end. I am the only one around that could save this little kid, but I don't want to risk getting an ear infection and since this matter (i.e., the potential ear infection) pertains to my body I think that I have the right to not consent to saving this kid.

Do you think I have the right, in that scenario, to not consent to saving the kid? I don't think I do, because consent doesn't matter in the instance that one could save someone else's life without any foreseeably significant unwanted bodily modifications.

Here's another example I would like your take on. Imagine I go out and stab an innocent person in both of their kidneys. The cops show up, arrest me, and the victim gets sent to the ER. Turns out, I am the only one with the right kidneys to save them (viz., there are no donors available that would match, etc.): do I have the right, as the egregious perpetrator, to keep my kidneys if I do not consent to giving them to the victim?

I don't think so: what do you think?

Moral principles might not hold in every situation within a relatively complex society such as ours.

I agree, but I think you are treating it as absolute (in practice) if you think that anything directly or indirectly related to one's body is governed by the right to consent.

In such a case it is ultimately her choice.

My responsibility comes beforehand, making sure we both share the same moral outlook.

So to be clear, when just hooking up (specifically NOT seeking to have a child) thus using Birth Control, you do or don't bother aligning morals beforehand?

Let's say there's just me and a little kid at a pool (and I don't know this kid)(no lifeguards: nothing other than us two). I am dangling my feet in the water and the kid starts drowning in the deep end. I am the only one around that could save this little kid, but I don't want to risk getting an ear infection and since this matter (i.e., the potential ear infection) pertains to my body I think that I have the right to not consent to saving this kid. — Bob Ross

As I pointed out before, this is disanalogous to abortion. Forcing a woman to give birth is much more onerous than a momentary dip in the pool and the risk an ear infection. A better analogy would be suppose we create artificial wombs such that a woman could have a fetus transferred to the artificial womb with very little time, effort, and risk to herself. Does she have a moral obligation to do so rather than have an abortion? Should she be forced to do so?

Also, being forced to save a drowning person is a very rare situation. It doesn't carry with it the baggage of what women have been forced to put up with throughout history. I am very leery, for very good reasons, of chipping away at the hard fought bodily autonomy rights woman have secured. If you give men an inch over women, they will try and take a mile.

So to be clear, when just hooking up (specifically NOT seeking to have a child) thus using Birth Control, you do or don't bother aligning morals beforehand? — LuckyR

That’s a good question. Were I to find myself in a casual situation (though unlikely) I’d probably no longer be interested in her moral outlook.

I believe that a relationship should have a silent and unspoken respect; which undoubtedly would be unattainable in casual.

If the woman’s bodily autonomy totally overrides the rights of the fetus then why isn’t she allowed to drink alcohol while pregnant? — ToothyMaw

Currently, no states criminalize alcohol use during pregnancy per se, nor do the CDC recommendations suggest that states do so.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4937126/

I don't think anyone is saying women have no responsibilities regarding the fetus.

180 said women should have abortion on demand even in the third trimester, and that it is basically slavery to give the fetus any consideration other than that it can be terminated at will. He said it in a post on another thread. Unless I'm misinterpreting what he said. And thanks for the correction, I thought there were legal consequences for giving your child fetal alcohol syndrome for some reason.

180 said women should have abortion on demand even in the third trimester, and that it is basically slavery to give the fetus any consideration other than that it can be terminated at will. — ToothyMaw

I don't see how that's slavery. Slaves did not live inside the bodies of others. The fact that the woman is carrying the fetus raises all sorts of unique issues. Should the state interfere in the doctor-patient relationship between the woman and her doctor? I hold that relationship to be pretty sacrosanct. I don't want government interfering in that unless they have a very good reason. Does the fetus's right to life trump the bodily autonomy rights of the woman? Again, I hold autonomy rights in high regard. If a fetus trumps a woman's rights in certain cases, will that create a slippery slope where the woman's rights are eventually trumped in all cases? Men still run the world and I don't trust men on this issue.

I thought Roe vs Wade was a good compromise: the woman starts off with full rights, and as the fetus develops, the state has more and more of an interest in protecting it.

Also: is a 9-month fetus a full fledged person? If you have to save a fetus vs. a ten year old child, which would you save? The ten year old, right?

No, I'm saying that said it was slavery to give a fetus rights in another post. I don't think it's slavery either, and thus tried to call him out on that ridiculous comparison. I'm pro-choice too, I just think we shouldn't go overboard and say dumb stuff like that.

I disagree: why would she have that sort of absolute right to bodily autonomy? — Bob Ross

In certain states in the US, a woman does not have a full autonomy over her body. An example is, if she was pregnant and a drug user, it is criminal.

Hello RogueAI,

As I pointed out before, this is disanalogous to abortion

I never claimed that they were equivalent to abortion, but, rather, that they are analogous. You seem to think, and correct me if I am wrong, that for something to be analogous it must be equivalent.

My example is absolutely analogous to the principle of which chiknsld explained in their post about people having a right to make their own decisions about their bodies; and, in turn, is going to be analogous to abortion for my conversation with them insofar as I think my example demonstrates an example where that principle is clearly false, which breaks it.

Also, being forced to save a drowning person is a very rare situation

Most of what you said, with all due respect, is completely irrelevant and demonstrates a misunderstanding of hypothetical situations. It simply does not matter how frequent the situation occurs in reality: that’s why it is called a hypothetical.

In certain states in the US, a woman does not have a full autonomy over her body. An example is, if she was pregnant and a drug user, it is criminal.

I agree with this sort of legality: if one is pregnant, then they have to consider the child and, thusly, cannot use drugs; and that absolutely should be criminal if they do.

I just like to use examples that prima facie aren't about abortion so that the conversation doesn't derail into begging the question and to try and latch onto intuitions one may have outside of abortion talk which are pertinent to it.

I just like to use examples that prima facie aren't about abortion so that the conversation doesn't derail into begging the question and to try and latch onto intuitions one may have outside of abortion talk which are pertinent to it. — Bob Ross

I understand. You are right to call out statements such as "a woman has autonomy over her body" carte blanche. Abortion is one of those situations where there is a lot of gray areas -- she can have an abortion, but she cannot use drugs while pregnant. The hazard for women who birth live babies is that the moment the baby is born, that baby is a whole person with a whole bunch of rights given to them, such that if she harms them in any way, it is criminal automatically.

Although, of course, if a woman does not feel like taking care of that baby, she can make it known legally and give up the baby. She has the right to reject the newborn baby.

I don't see how that's slavery. — RogueAI

Here is what I actually wrote if you care to critically assess my legalistic analogy instead of ToothyMaw's "stupid" (lazy) strawman:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/566082

In other words, how is forced pregnancy substantially different from forced labor?

I see. I haven't been following the thread that closely.

I never claimed that they were equivalent to abortion, but, rather, that they are analogous. You seem to think, and correct me if I am wrong, that for something to be analogous it must be equivalent.

My example is absolutely analogous to the principle of which chiknsld explained in their post about people having a right to make their own decisions about their bodies; and, in turn, is going to be analogous to abortion for my conversation with them insofar as I think my example demonstrates an example where that principle is clearly false, which breaks it. — Bob Ross

For something to be analogous, it has to be in the same ballpark. Winning $5 on a scratcher is not analogous to winning a billion dollar Powerball jackpot, although they both involve winning money from state lotteries. But this is a semantics issue. Your analogy/example/comparison fails because you are equating, to at least some degree, being forced to go in a poor and risk an ear infection to being forced to carry a baby to term and give birth to it. Come up with a better analogy.

Most of what you said, with all due respect, is completely irrelevant and demonstrates a misunderstanding of hypothetical situations. It simply does not matter how frequent the situation occurs in reality: that’s why it is called a hypothetical. — Bob Ross

Your hypothetical is a rare one-off event of being forced to save a drowning person. This will not happen for the vast vast majority of people. There's not going to be a gradual erosion of freedom from these events because they happen so infrequently. Abortions, on the other hand, happen all the time. Reproductive rights are always in play. A chipping away at an abortion right could easily lead to further erosions of women's reproductive/bodily autonomy rights until they're forced to walk around in burqas. As long as men are in power, this remains a valid concern.

For something to be analogous, it has to be in the same ballpark

Not at all. An analogy is a perfect similarity between two relations in wholly dissimilar things. In order to understand an analogy, one must understand what is being compared as similar: what aspect is being pointed out. You keep pointing out things which were never claimed as analogous.

Your analogy/example/comparison fails because you are equating, to at least some degree, being forced to go in a poor and risk an ear infection to being forced to carry a baby to term and give birth to it.

No they are not. I already explained the analogy I was using in the quote you took of my conversation with the other person; and it was not implying this whatsoever.

I will re-quote myself on what was pointing out in the analogy:

My example is absolutely analogous to the principle of which chiknsld explained in their post about people having a right to make their own decisions about their bodies; and, in turn, is going to be analogous to abortion for my conversation with them insofar as I think my example demonstrates an example where that principle is clearly false, which breaks it.

My example is absolutely analogous to the principle of which chiknsld explained in their post about people having a right to make their own decisions about their bodies; and, in turn, is going to be analogous to abortion for my conversation with them insofar as I think my example demonstrates an example where that principle is clearly false, which breaks it.

Then you are making a trivial point. If the survival of the world depended on a person pressing a button, should they be legally compelled to press it and give up some autonomy rights? Yes, but so what? What does your example about swimming and ear infections have to do with abortion? Yes, sometimes autonomy rights get overridden. In the case of abortion...

Do you think I have the right, in that scenario, to not consent to saving the kid? — Bob Ross

I would say that it is certainly unethical to not help the child but I think it’d be difficult to prove any moral obligation to do so. In the end, it is a favor.

Here's another example I would like your take on. Imagine I go out and stab an innocent person in both of their kidneys. The cops show up, arrest me, and the victim gets sent to the ER. Turns out, I am the only one with the right kidneys to save them (viz., there are no donors available that would match, etc.): do I have the right, as the egregious perpetrator, to keep my kidneys if I do not consent to giving them to the victim?

I don't think so: what do you think? — Bob Ross

When you commit a crime you give up your rights, hence the death penalty.

I agree, but I think you are treating it as absolute (in practice) if you think that anything directly or indirectly related to one's body is governed by the right to consent — Bob Ross

That is interesting :) though I would not equate a natural given right with a moral principle.

do I have the right, as the egregious perpetrator, to keep my kidneys if I do not consent to giving them to the victim? — Bob Ross

Yes. You do.

I agree with this sort of legality: if one is pregnant, then they have to consider the child and, thusly, cannot use drugs; and that absolutely should be criminal if they do. — Bob Ross

What about drinking? Would you make it a crime for a pregnant woman to drink at all? Should it be a crime for a pregnant woman to eat too much junkfood? Smoke the occasional cigarette?

Let me give you an example and let me know your take on it. Let's say there's just me and a little kid at a pool (and I don't know this kid)(no lifeguards: nothing other than us two). I am dangling my feet in the water and the kid starts drowning in the deep end. I am the only one around that could save this little kid, but I don't want to risk getting an ear infection and since this matter (i.e., the potential ear infection) pertains to my body I think that I have the right to not consent to saving this kid.

Do you think I have the right, in that scenario, to not consent to saving the kid? I don't think I do, because consent doesn't matter in the instance that one could save someone else's life without any foreseeably significant unwanted bodily modifications.

Here's another example I would like your take on. Imagine I go out and stab an innocent person in both of their kidneys. The cops show up, arrest me, and the victim gets sent to the ER. Turns out, I am the only one with the right kidneys to save them (viz., there are no donors available that would match, etc.): do I have the right, as the egregious perpetrator, to keep my kidneys if I do not consent to giving them to the victim?

I don't think so: what do you think

Cute. Even if your name wasn't Bob, I'd know you were a guy. Ear infection, eh?

If you want an analogy, let's give an analogy. Let's say if you jump in the pool you'll get mystery disease X. Folks who get mystery disease X have a 1.4% chance of "serious morbidity", a 32 per 100,000 chance of dying and about a 33% chance of needing major surgery.

Next: "Generally speaking, there is legally no duty to rescue another person.

The courts have gone into very gory details in order to explain this. In Buch v. Amory Manufacturing Co., the defendant had no obligation to save a child from crushing his hand in a manufacturing machine. The court suggested an analogy in which a baby was on the train tracks – did a person standing idly by have the obligation to save him? Legally, no. He was a “ruthless savage and a moral monster,” but legally he did not have to save that baby"

However, mystery disease X stats are on average. There are some folks who get it who have a 25% chance of dying. Any thoughts about judging those who don't jump into the pool?

Another thing: I can tell you that the kidney stabber convict situation is well established in the Medical Ethics field and it is quite clear the stabber cannot be coerced into donation of a kidney.

Lastly your commentary is missing another angle in the abortion situation and that is society and the courts give very broad powers to parents to manage the healthcare of their minor children. Thus it stands to reason that it should grant even broader powers to those governing potential children (who are not minor children).