NationStates

Akrisen wrote:

The Free Joy State wrote:Would you be evil if you exercised bodily sovereignty and refused to donate bone marrow to a person for whom you are the only match, one who would die without it (though it would cause you no health problems to donate) -- though you didn't want to?

Would you be evil if you exercised your property rights and kicked someone out of your home, when they moved in without permission and are eating all your food and putting muddy boots all over your furniture (when they have nowhere else to go), even if you have a spare room -- though they're rude and you want them to go?

Yes you would be evil for not donating to save someone who actually needs it. No you wouldnt be evil for kicking out a bad roommate, but if you think a foetus is a roommate I suppose your eyes are roommates.

Should you be forced to donate bone marrow -- if you refuse (the law says "no", by the way)? Should someone who doesn't want to donate be dragged through the streets, forcibly sedated and have bone marrow, kidneys or blood pulled from them without consent, if someone else needs it?

That's roughly analagous to forced pregnancy.

As for being able to evict someone -- you looked for the wrong comparison. It's not the foetus/guest, but the process that is comparable. Body autonomy can be protected with minimum force: eviction is the minimum force with an unwanted guest; abortion is the minimum force needed to evict a foetus.

I'm not a fan of this poll.

I don't think any of the options fit. I find myself more of the opinion that we should focus on limiting pregnancies in general so that abortions aren't needed at all (though I do believe they should be provided to those who desire it). Subsidised or free contraception options, comprehensive sexual education, and a focus on education in general will do its job.

With less unexpected or unwanted pregnancies, abortion rates will go down on their own.

The Free Joy State wrote:

Akrisen wrote:
Yes you would be evil for not donating to save someone who actually needs it. No you wouldnt be evil for kicking out a bad roommate, but if you think a foetus is a roommate I suppose your eyes are roommates.

Should you be forced to donate bone marrow -- if you refuse (the law says "no", by the way)? Should someone who doesn't want to donate be dragged through the streets, forcibly sedated and have bone marrow or kidneys pulled from them without consent, if someone else needs it?

That's roughly analagous to forced pregnancy.

As for being able to evict someone -- you looked for the wrong comparison. It's not the foetus/guest, but the process that is comparable. Body autonomy can be protected with minimum force: eviction is the minimum force with an unwanted guest; abortion is the minimum force needed to evict a foetus.

No because donating marrow is not the same as killing potential humans.

Akrisen wrote:

The Free Joy State wrote:Should you be forced to donate bone marrow -- if you refuse (the law says "no", by the way)? Should someone who doesn't want to donate be dragged through the streets, forcibly sedated and have bone marrow or kidneys pulled from them without consent, if someone else needs it?

That's roughly analagous to forced pregnancy.

As for being able to evict someone -- you looked for the wrong comparison. It's not the foetus/guest, but the process that is comparable. Body autonomy can be protected with minimum force: eviction is the minimum force with an unwanted guest; abortion is the minimum force needed to evict a foetus.

No because donating marrow is not the same as killing potential humans.

Actually, they're both a matter of bodily sovereignty.

Both the person who doesn't want to donate and the pregnant person have bodily autonomy.

Both forced donation and forced pregnancy involve compelled maintenance of another life (one that depends on them).

Neither the person who doesn't want to donate and the pregnant person can be mandated to medically maintain another life against their will.

The Free Joy State wrote:

Akrisen wrote:
No because donating marrow is not the same as killing potential humans.

Actually, they're both a matter of bodily sovereignty.

Both the person who doesn't want to donate and the pregnant person have bodily autonomy.

Both forced donation and forced pregnancy involve compelled maintenance of another life (one that depends on them).

Neither the person who doesn't want to donate and the pregnant person can be mandated to medically maintain another life against their will.

But this is about abortion not bodily sovereignty.

Akrisen wrote:

The Free Joy State wrote:Actually, they're both a matter of bodily sovereignty.

Both the person who doesn't want to donate and the pregnant person have bodily autonomy.

Both forced donation and forced pregnancy involve compelled maintenance of another life (one that depends on them).

Neither the person who doesn't want to donate and the pregnant person can be mandated to medically maintain another life against their will.

But this is about abortion not bodily sovereignty.

Abortion is irrevocably entwined with bodily sovereignty -- the woman's. You can't separate the abortion debate from the issue of the woman's bodily sovereignty.

No person can be forced to medically maintain another life against their will -- this extends to all pregnant people.

The Free Joy State wrote:

Akrisen wrote:
But this is about abortion not bodily sovereignty.

Abortion is irrevocably entwined with bodily sovereignty -- the woman's. You can't separate the abortion debate from the issue of the woman's bodily sovereignty.

No person can be forced to medically maintain another life against their will -- this extends to all pregnant people.

Abortion is about killing potential humans not bodily sovereignty. Silcing off a wart is bodily sovereignty.

Akrisen wrote:

The Free Joy State wrote:Abortion is irrevocably entwined with bodily sovereignty -- the woman's. You can't separate the abortion debate from the issue of the woman's bodily sovereignty.

No person can be forced to medically maintain another life against their will -- this extends to all pregnant people.

Abortion is about killing potential humans not bodily sovereignty. Silcing off a wart is bodily sovereignty.

As is deciding you do not wish another person to use your body for sustenance.

Akrisen wrote:

The Free Joy State wrote:Abortion is irrevocably entwined with bodily sovereignty -- the woman's. You can't separate the abortion debate from the issue of the woman's bodily sovereignty.

No person can be forced to medically maintain another life against their will -- this extends to all pregnant people.

Abortion is about killing potential humans not bodily sovereignty. Silcing off a wart is bodily sovereignty.

It is about bodily sovereignty. It is also about the killing of the fetus.

It can be (and is) about both at the same time.

It's like saying forced organ donation isn't about bodily sovereignty because lives are at stake.
Bodily sovereignty doesn't magically disappear because we're talking about fetuses.

Life is precious therefore all babies that dont cause medical complications to the mothers should be saved.

Akrisen wrote:

The Free Joy State wrote:Abortion is irrevocably entwined with bodily sovereignty -- the woman's. You can't separate the abortion debate from the issue of the woman's bodily sovereignty.

No person can be forced to medically maintain another life against their will -- this extends to all pregnant people.

Abortion is about killing potential humans not bodily sovereignty. Silcing off a wart is bodily sovereignty.

Bodily sovereignty's definition does not begin where you want it to and end where you want it to, and the definition of the abortion debate is not as limited as you'd like it to be.

Body autonomy or integrity upholds:

• Reproductive rights -- including the right to contraception and abortion
• Protection from forced marriage
• Protection from forced sexual contact
• Freedom of movement
• Prevention of cruel and unusual punishment
• Prevention of torture
• Prevention of slavery
• Prevention of non-consensual medical experimentation
• Prevention of forced labour

Akrisen wrote:Abortion is about killing potential humans not bodily sovereignty. Silcing off a wart is bodily sovereignty.

"I don't want this fetus in my body."

Yep, totally not about bodily sovereignty. Nothing whatsoever to do with bodily sovereignty.

The Free Joy State wrote:

Akrisen wrote:
If preservation of life then its fine because a life for a life, but if the mom is not in danger then its evil.

Would you be evil if you exercised bodily sovereignty and refused to donate bone marrow to a person for whom you are the only match, one who would die without it (though it would cause you no health problems to donate) -- though you didn't want to?

You'd definitely be kind of an asshole. It's not illegal to be an asshole, but that would definitely be an asshole move.

Akrisen wrote:Life is precious therefore all babies that dont cause medical complications to the mothers should be saved.

No. Also who the fuck do you think you are to force a woman to carry a baby that resulted from her being raped?

Highever wrote:

Akrisen wrote:Life is precious therefore all babies that dont cause medical complications to the mothers should be saved.

No. Also who the fuck do you think you are to force a woman to carry a baby that resulted from her being raped?

A good person who believes that children should not be allowed to die because of the whims of an adult.

Akrisen wrote:

Highever wrote:No. Also who the fuck do you think you are to force a woman to carry a baby that resulted from her being raped?

A good person who believes that children should not be allowed to die because of the whims of an adult.

>"good person".
>shows clear disdain and disregard for women in giving them even further trauma through forced pregnancy after being raped.
>has the insulting view that women often get abortions dimply to stay appealing to men.

Yeah okay guy. Whatever you need to tell yourself.

Akrisen wrote:

Highever wrote:No. Also who the fuck do you think you are to force a woman to carry a baby that resulted from her being raped?

A good person who believes that children should not be allowed to die because of the whims of an adult.

Ah. Then I suppose that you are in favor of increases to welfare, and massive crackdowns on corporations that exploit lax labor laws and pollute the environment?

Highever wrote:

Akrisen wrote:
A good person who believes that children should not be allowed to die because of the whims of an adult.

>"good person".
>shows clear disdain and disregard for women in giving them even further trauma through forced pregnancy after being raped.
>has the insulting view that women often get abortions dimply to stay appealing to men.

Yeah okay guy. Whatever you need to tell yourself.

How does rape pregnancy hurt a woman more than consent pregnancy? It doesnt, the action of rape hurts the woman but the foetus isnt doing anything different from one created by consent sex.

Akrisen wrote:

Highever wrote:>"good person".
>shows clear disdain and disregard for women in giving them even further trauma through forced pregnancy after being raped.
>has the insulting view that women often get abortions dimply to stay appealing to men.

Yeah okay guy. Whatever you need to tell yourself.

How does rape pregnancy hurt a woman more than consent pregnancy? It doesnt, the action of rape hurts the woman but the foetus isnt doing anything different from one created by consent sex.

Yes it does, since she is forced to carry the result of her being raped every day for 9 months, being reminded over and over again of that rape. It is emotionally traumatizing. Not onl;y did she essentially have some one force her to lose her bodily sovereignty when she was raped, she is again being forced to do so when she is not allowed to remove the fetus from her body.
Given the all life being precious line you took I am sure you are for you being forced through any medical procedures, no matter how dangerous so long as they do not kill you, to save a humans life. That includes being forced to donate organs (you only need 1 kidney), blood, bone marrow, etc. Any time of any day you may be forced to to do so.

Akrisen wrote:

Highever wrote:>"good person".
>shows clear disdain and disregard for women in giving them even further trauma through forced pregnancy after being raped.
>has the insulting view that women often get abortions dimply to stay appealing to men.

Yeah okay guy. Whatever you need to tell yourself.

How does rape pregnancy hurt a woman more than consent pregnancy? It doesnt, the action of rape hurts the woman but the foetus isnt doing anything different from one created by consent sex.

Yes, how could a woman ever be hurt by being forced to carry the child conceived during an incredibly traumatizing event for 9 months and then be forced to give birth to the child of the man who did that to her? What an astoundingly ignorant and arrogant statement to say that it does no harm.

Highever wrote:

Akrisen wrote:
How does rape pregnancy hurt a woman more than consent pregnancy? It doesnt, the action of rape hurts the woman but the foetus isnt doing anything different from one created by consent sex.

Yes, how could a woman ever be hurt by being forced to carry the child conceived during an incredibly traumatizing event for 9 months and then be forced to give birth to the child of the man who did that to her? What an astoundingly ignorant and arrogant statement to say that it does no harm.

Like passing abortion bans, such views are easy when you're a man.

Akrisen wrote:Life is precious therefore all babies that dont cause medical complications to the mothers should be saved.

and who are you to tell someone to have a child they dont want such as a rape victim and have to go through nine month of pregnancy from a traumatic event. And dont give me the fetus is innocent nonsense. Its not sentient and its unknown exactly when that occurs.

If your going to force that on someone then it should be mandatory to donate blood or organs.

Akrisen wrote:

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:Are you aware that a zygote in week 0.142857142857... does not equal a born person or a person of childbearing age? Drawing equivalency between those three states is nonsensical.

They are a potential person.

Potential is worth its weight in empty space.

Auphelia wrote:I'm not a fan of this poll.

I don't think any of the options fit. I find myself more of the opinion that we should focus on limiting pregnancies in general so that abortions aren't needed at all (though I do believe they should be provided to those who desire it). Subsidised or free contraception options, comprehensive sexual education, and a focus on education in general will do its job.

With less unexpected or unwanted pregnancies, abortion rates will go down on their own.

Option 1.

Akrisen wrote:

The Free Joy State wrote:Actually, they're both a matter of bodily sovereignty.

Both the person who doesn't want to donate and the pregnant person have bodily autonomy.

Both forced donation and forced pregnancy involve compelled maintenance of another life (one that depends on them).

Neither the person who doesn't want to donate and the pregnant person can be mandated to medically maintain another life against their will.

But this is about abortion not bodily sovereignty.

You cannot separate the two. Banning abortion reduces bodily sovereignty. Legalizing abortion increases bodily sovereignty.

If all live is precious, and you think abortion should be allowed only to save the mother, does that mean that when the mother has twins, it is better to save the twin fetuses over the mother? It strikes me that saving two lives is more important than saving one if we're using lives saved as the only metric.