NationStates

Sundiata wrote:

Godular wrote:
Then it is free to go live the remainder of its natural life elsewhere, outside the woman's uterus, once it is removed.

To remove it is actively choosing to kill it.

"Abortion is murder." Drink of choice y'all.

Sundiata wrote:

Genivaria wrote:Does it have the right to someone else's body?

Not anymore than the rights that someone else has to its body.

Noone here is arguing that someone else has the right to its body so this is a non-sequitor.
We are arguing that the fetus does not have the right to someone else's body.

Sundiata wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Whether the unborn's existence is an act of intrusion, whatever that's supposed to mean, is irrelevant. They are not welcome, and they are not leaving, therefore they are not innocent.

No, the existence of the unborn, let alone the state of being welcomed, is not the fault of the unborn and no fault should be ascribed.

A zygote is an innocent human person.

I am not talking about their existence, and the unborn ceases to be innocent when they fail to leave once they are unwelcome. How they came to be unwelcome is irrelevant, and talking about ascribing fault for that is just nonsense, the fact is that they are unwelcome and therefore they must leave.

Sundiata wrote:

Godular wrote:
Then it is free to go live the remainder of its natural life elsewhere, outside the woman's uterus, once it is removed.

To remove it is actively choosing to kill it.

No it isn't. It's simply ejecting it from the property. What it does after that is nobody's business but its own.

Godular wrote:

Sundiata wrote:To remove it is actively choosing to kill it.

No it isn't. It's simply ejecting it from the property. What it does after that is nobody's business but its own.

If a hospital does that to a patient who can't pay, they are in a mess of legal trouble.

Elwher wrote:

Godular wrote:
No it isn't. It's simply ejecting it from the property. What it does after that is nobody's business but its own.

If a hospital does that to a patient who can't pay, they are in a mess of legal trouble.

Is this the intellectual standard here these days? Amaze.

Godular wrote:

Sundiata wrote:To remove it is actively choosing to kill it.

No it isn't. It's simply ejecting it from the property. What it does after that is nobody's business but its own.

Women's bodies, human bodies, are not property.

Sundiata wrote:

Godular wrote:
No it isn't. It's simply ejecting it from the property. What it does after that is nobody's business but its own.

Women's bodies, human bodies, are not property.

So you agree that women have the right to not be molested by undesirable elements, unlike inanimate objects?

Sundiata wrote:

Godular wrote:
No it isn't. It's simply ejecting it from the property. What it does after that is nobody's business but its own.

Women's bodies, human bodies, are not property.

Indeed, a person's body is not property, it is that person. So however mildly we talk about it, one person being literally inside the body of another without permission is not a minor transgression. It is a serious violation of the most basic human rights.

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:

Sundiata wrote:Women's bodies, human bodies, are not property.

So you agree that women have the right to not be molested by undesirable elements, unlike inanimate objects?

Yes. Do you agree that the unborn have the right not to be massacred en masse as if they are beneath human beings, animals?

Sundiata wrote:

Godular wrote:
No it isn't. It's simply ejecting it from the property. What it does after that is nobody's business but its own.

Women's bodies, human bodies, are not property.

Bodily sovereignty says different, as that's possession/ownership of one's own body. Having control of one's body implies it's one's own property in a sense.

Sundiata wrote:

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:So you agree that women have the right to not be molested by undesirable elements, unlike inanimate objects?

Yes. Do you agree that the unborn have the right not to be massacred en masse as if they are not human beings?

You are doing that thing again where you mimic the writing style of the person you are responding to.

Elwher wrote:

Godular wrote:
No it isn't. It's simply ejecting it from the property. What it does after that is nobody's business but its own.

If a hospital does that to a patient who can't pay, they are in a mess of legal trouble.

Are you just spitballing?

A woman who does not consent to a pregnancy is not the same as a fucking hospital refusing service. The hospital contains staff who have undergone significant amounts of training, licensing, and a wide variety of professional qualifications that specifically focus on aiding others in need. To equate such a thing with a single untrained and unwilling individual is not even remotely reasonable nor realistic.

No. The woman is more akin to some person that for 'reasons' is being tasked with giving of their own body in order to sustain the existence of another individual. If they do not consent to this, forcing them to do it anyway is one of the most fundamental violations of self-determination possible. Some people might take issue if they refuse to provide this assistance, saying that they should feel honored to assist in saving the life of another. But the person's reasons for the refusal are for that person and that person alone, and it is wrong to judge their refusal when one does not know the facts.

Sundiata wrote:

Godular wrote:
No it isn't. It's simply ejecting it from the property. What it does after that is nobody's business but its own.

Women's bodies, human bodies, are not property.

Yes they are. They are the most fundamental property that a person can possess. Some folks might choose to give it away when they are done with it. Others might rent it out. In the end however it is one of those things where the person's own self-ownership is seen as a fundamental right, and it is unconscionable to take such a thing away.

Godular wrote:

Sundiata wrote:Women's bodies, human bodies, are not property.

Yes they are. They are the most fundamental property that a person can possess.

The sense that human bodies are "property," is a figure of speech, a quirk of language. The human body is not really any person's property.

Sundiata wrote:

Grave_n_idle wrote:
Immoral?

Your 'morals' are just something you made up.

Not really, no. No.

Yes, absolutely.

You keep talking about things being 'moral' and 'immoral'.

Personally, I think that you doing that is 'immoral'. Which is at least as valid as your claims about morality. Probably more valid, because I'm not trying to force other people to be slaves because of it.

So take your personal 'morality' which means nothing to anyone else, and leave it out of the debate. It's fine for you to thi9nk something is 'moral' or 'immoral', but unless you've got something more than a 'feeling', it doesn't matter to the debate.

Sundiata wrote:

Godular wrote:
Then it is free to go live the remainder of its natural life elsewhere, outside the woman's uterus, once it is removed.

To remove it is actively choosing to kill it.

Nope. Choosing to terminate a pregnancy is not a decision to 'kill' anything. The destruction of any fetus is entirely incidental.

Maybe you should be trying to invent a way to make abortions less risky for the fetus, rather than wasting time trying to stop women having autonomy?

Sundiata wrote:

Godular wrote:Yes they are. They are the most fundamental property that a person can possess.

The sense that human bodies are "property," is a figure of speech, a quirk of language. The human body is not really any person's property.

It isn't a quirk of language at all: that thing you are ignoring, "bodily sovereignty", implies ownership over one's own body as a form of possession, of property.

The New California Republic wrote:

Sundiata wrote:The sense that human bodies are "property," is a figure of speech, a quirk of language. The human body is not really any person's property.

It isn't a quirk of language at all: that thing you are ignoring, "bodily sovereignty", implies ownership over one's own body as a form of possession, of property.

Any sense of ownership that one has over the human body is illusory, the human body cannot be owned by one human being or the other. It's not a possession; it's not property.

Sundiata wrote:

Godular wrote:
Yes they are. They are the most fundamental property that a person can possess.

The sense that human bodies are "property," is a figure of speech, a quirk of language. The human body is not really any person's property.

The person's body is that person's property, on the most fundamental level. I very much champion the right of a person to defend themselves and their property from anyone who intrudes upon it without the person's consent. In the case of use against a born person, such defense can be nonlethal, but the lethality of the force to be used is not considered a limiting factor among those who champion such things.

Bodily Sovereignty. Self-Determination. These things all fall under my axiom that a person's body is the one thing that they own, both as property, and as an intrinsic property.

Trespassers beware.

Sundiata wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:It isn't a quirk of language at all: that thing you are ignoring, "bodily sovereignty", implies ownership over one's own body as a form of possession, of property.

Any sense of ownership that one has over the human body is illusory

No, it really isn't. It is backed up and codified in law. Bodily sovereignty has very real effects, and can be readily observed in the behaviour of people. You need to bring some weighty evidence to the table if you want to prove it's an illusion.

Sundiata wrote:the human body cannot be owned by one human being or the other. It's not a possession; it's not property.

Again bodily sovereignty says different. I possess my body for instance, you have no right over it.

And with my talk of fundamental properties and axioms, I think I know what my next poll question is gonna be!

We're rapidly closing on on another 100 pages.

Sundiata wrote:

Godular wrote:
Then it is free to go live the remainder of its natural life elsewhere, outside the woman's uterus, once it is removed.

To remove it is actively choosing to kill it.

You're the one who is always stressing that only intentions matter, and that we should completely blind ourselves to the consequences. You cannot, therefore, consider what the consequences of removing the fetus will be. We can only consider whether it's just to remove it.

Neanderthaland wrote:

Sundiata wrote:To remove it is actively choosing to kill it.

You're the one who is always stressing that only intentions matter, and that we should completely blind ourselves to the consequences. You cannot, therefore, consider what the consequences of removing the fetus will be. We can only consider whether it's just to remove it.

To be clear, I've only ever said that intentions matter as much as the outcome. Unfortunately, good means can also be used towards evil ends.

Sundiata wrote:

Neanderthaland wrote:You're the one who is always stressing that only intentions matter, and that we should completely blind ourselves to the consequences. You cannot, therefore, consider what the consequences of removing the fetus will be. We can only consider whether it's just to remove it.

To be clear, I've only ever said that intentions matter as much as the outcome. Unfortunately, good means can also be used towards evil ends.

To be clear, you were willing to sacrifice every single person on the planet rather than kill one.

That's not "equal weight." That's a clear preference. And you are now walking it back because it doesn't suit your argument anymore.