I would reply, but at the moment I am literally shipwrecked.
The situation is dire. My ice is nearly melted and we are down to our last six pack and some of those expired pork skins they sell at the bait shop.
Hopefully the guy who rented us the boat but forgot to reinstall the drain plug will send out a search party soon.
If you don’t here from me by tomorrow…
Only if you assume that that argument is valid. I not only don’t agree that it’s valid, I think that it’s nonsense. I don’t understand why some in this thread seem to assume otherwise.
I don’t even think it’s a valid argument if the woman intended to get pregnant. Intending to get pregnant doesn’t mean giving up one’s bodily autonomy; it means choosing to use one’s bodily autonomy for the purpose of getting pregnant. That’s not at all the same thing.
We are out of beer and a passing boat promised to send help.
Thorny if you don’t like the argument it’s customary to say why.
Max:
I get the impression you are a lawyer.
I am stranded on an island, due to incompetence of boat rental guy and suffering from beer withdrawal. Do you need a case?
Sounds to me like you’re the one most in need of a case.
Please read the thread.
Looking for something rational. Right to life must supersede body autonomy as killing someone removes their body autonomy.
I don’t see how using birth control or not changes anything.
A woman who does not want to get pregnant but uses no birth control has a chance of getting pregnant and has waived her body autonomy?
A woman who does not want to get pregnant and uses birth control has a chance of getting pregnant. Why would she not also lose her autonomy.
A throwaway line inspired your second point. Seems pretty moot.
For the third, a women no more has that “right” than I have the right to spend a day fishing without having my boat sink and getting stranded on a sand bar. Such a right is wishful thinking.
Great minds…
Weeeeeeellllll… yes and no. Whacking off is a sin, too but I think we all do it, and, the sec is always better if it is a sin, verboten, tabooo. We Catholics do enjoy our guilt.
You non Catholics fuck up and that shit is on you forever. Meanwhile, I can go on a coke and hooker binge anytime I want and as long as I feel bad about it, confess and say a Hail Mary or two, my soul is squeaky clean again.
When your Catholic, everything fun is a sin. That’s half The reason it’s fun!!!
[/QUOTE]
I feel that you already agreed with my point and understand that this is a metaphor for sex, so I don’t know what response is appropriate.
Nothing rational about that statement. You’re saying ‘body autonomy must supersede body autonomy’.
Plus which, it’s been pointed out over and over and over in this thread that the society – you included – doesn’t accept that argument for anything other than pregnancy.
Society accepts all kinds of things that are untrue and make no sense.
Saying that pregnancy is an exception requires compelling reasoning to justify that exception.
So far, all I’ve seen is conclusion assuming.
I got off the island.
I don’t even know what you’re arguing anymore. Everybody who claims the body autonomy argument has been consistent in that it applies to cases of organ donation to unwanted pregnancy. The fetus (person or none) has no agency which is not granted by the mother. The line is arbitrary, one can argue. Fine - it’s arbitrary. So is the age when one can legally drink, drive and vote (not all at the same time). You want absolute consistency on the subject of abortion? Given the abundance of evidence, I think pro-choice is the most consistent platform you’re going to find because it allows for the maximum amount of individual freedom. That is the least harm principle. Not no harm, least harm. Additionally, there is the benefit of not demonizing women for having sex. Which, frankly, doesn’t hurt men one bit either. If you want to continue the harangue then ‘asked and answered’ is the best you’re going to get from the pro-choice side. It’s a damn site more consistent and honest then the Catholic position: Go and sin no more my son; Same time next week?..
Voted off, undoubtedly.
Please read the thread.
There have been multiple arguments in this thread saying that pregnancy is not an exception to bodily autonomy. You are one of the ones saying that it is.
That’s all I see from you.
That and claiming that all the arguments given against you, some of which you haven’t addressed at all and some of which you’ve addressed in fashions I and others here find unconvincing, aren’t rational. We may not all be convinced by the same arguments; but that doesn’t mean that your set are all rational and the opposing ones aren’t.
Not a lawyer, and definitely not your lawyer. But presumably you used a phone to send this message, and that same device can call for help. Meanwhile you can ask Professor Hinkley to make a shelter from thatch and drink from coconuts…
~Max
The question is whether she took reasonable precautions to prevent the pregnancy; alternately, would a reasonable person in her position expect the pregnancy to take? The waiver of consent is entirely based on reasonable expectations.
It’s not a throwaway line, it is entirely possible for one to oppose contraception and abortion. In fact I think it is impractical if not self-contradicting to have differing opinions of both issues. Are gynecologists going to ask each woman seeking an abortion whether she used contraceptives? What’s preventing the woman from saying “yes”? Will evidence be required?
~Max
Personally I think it’s a fine metaphor, but I also have the feeling that certain religions say it is not only possible but expected that you live a full and happy life while never fornicating and never having sex without the intention to procreate.
Also, historically people were married at a younger age, in their teenage years or early 20s, whereas now it is the late 20s.
These days it’s really only Catholicism that takes the latter view, but plenty of churches decry fornication.
~Max
Not seeing it.
If I lose a bet where the odds are 100 to 1 in my favor or 100-1 against me doesn’t matter. I still lose the bet.
No matter what precautions I use when I pick up my chainsaw I am still rolling the dice on maiming my self. Picking up the chainsaw itself is accepting the risk in spite of those precautions. It is not a guaranty.
It’s not arbitrary. It’s nonsensical. A woman who does not want a pregnancy is in an adversarial position to whatever rights or agency one would provide the fetus.
Nope. Got refund, though.
I’ve seen you and some others make some arguments with Max about roller skating and organ donation and such. I don’t really see how it applies.
If you are not able to argue your stance with me, I guess that’s an answer.
Is not.
Good. An individual with agency and rights.
Yes. Her body. Her decision.
And who do you propose that should be? Be specific. It’s for posterity.