it’s fine; I was expecting dumb fucks who make dumb arguments all the time to not read into all that. most of the downvotes probably assume I’m pro life despite the fact that I’m pro choice. not only that but I support abortion without restrictions. don’t care about viability as I think it’s a weak basis, I don’t care if it’s the tenth month.
I don’t think your example removes the woman from the equation. the transfer is still related to bodily autonomy. the fetus is part of the mother, and forcing someone to transfer it and keep it alive is still against that. you can’t force me to ejaculate into a cup, what makes it ok to force someone to transfer their fetus anywhere?
nah maybe if you’d have the baby conceived inside the artificial womb from the start…?
then you’d have other questions like is it ok to force a baby to be born without any parents in their life… whole other can of worms which is about the baby’s welfare, which is why this hypothetical will never be discussed by anti choice people because they don’t give a shit about the baby and aren’t the least bit interested in what would happen to them if you remove the woman from the equation.
I don’t think your example removes the woman from the equation. the transfer is still related to bodily autonomy. the fetus is part of the mother,
It’s not “part of the mother” once it is no longer physically tethered to her, if it’s no longer physically attached to her body why would bodily autonomy be relevant? Like, the entire point is to separate bodily autonomy from being made responsible for a child, because it demonstrates that the argument isn’t really about bodily autonomy, not entirely.
To throw you another loop along these lines - if something that was part of your body remains part of your body once removed and you keep overriding power over what happens to it afterward would that mean after you donate blood you have absolute power over who is allowed to receive that blood henceforth?
and forcing someone to transfer it and keep it alive is still against that.
Once it’s not attached to her body and is therefore not a matter of bodily autonomy, why shouldn’t she be compelled to provide for it’s continued existence whether or not she wants the child? Maybe threaten her with jail if she doesn’t comply with payments to keep the gestation going.
you can’t force me to ejaculate into a cup, what makes it ok to force someone to transfer their fetus anywhere?
In this hypothetical no one is forcing anyone to transfer their fetus, they can carry the pregnancy or terminate the pregnancy as is their preference but what they can’t do is terminate the pregnancy and then kill the fetus, instead a terminated pregnancy doesn’t free you of the future child. Ending a pregnancy in this hypothetical doesn’t end the future responsibility for a child, which is why it’s illustrative of how it’s not entirely about bodily autonomy, not really.
And for a fun question, what do you think happens legally if you ejaculate somewhere (anywhere other than a vagina is fine for this hypothetical) and someone retrieves that sperm and manages to inseminate themselves with it against your will or even knowledge? I’ll give you a hint, it involves future responsibility for any resulting child. Same situation as applies for reproductive coercion, sexual assault and statutory rape for a person who produces the smaller reproductive cell (to use the US federal government approved phrasing).
if it is part of your body the removal is still the removal of part of your body. you can’t say it’s OK to cut off my hand because once it’s off, it’s no longer attached to me. as I said the only way you could remove bodily autonomy from the equation is if the fetus never enters the body (eg it all happens in the artificial womb).
and this entire hypothetical completely avoids my main point which is that the bodily autonomy problem comes into play not because of the pro-choice side. it’s because of the anti-choice side. the whole point of the entire conversation is the control over women, and the unborn is just a pretense.
that’s why this hypothetical will never be the problem because if the woman is not involved there wouldn’t be an anti-choice side because THEY. DON’T. CARE. ABOUT. THE FETUS. it’s never about the fetus. which is also why you see people moralize based on religion even though their religion doesn’t actually oppose abortion as a concept.
also the law you cite is stupid and doesn’t have any weight on what ought to happen. it’s also legal to marry children in some states, doesn’t make it ok.
you can’t say it’s OK to cut off my hand because once it’s off, it’s no longer attached to me.
No, but I can say that if you ask me to remove your hand, what happens to the hand after it is removed is not a matter of your bodily autonomy.
the whole point of the entire conversation is the control over women, and the unborn is just a pretense.
And I’m literally arguing that the pro-choice side isn’t being honest about it either, that claiming it’s exclusively about bodily autonomy is also just pretense. Notice that I’m suggesting a hypothetical where bodily autonomy and still having the child are detached from each other, where ending the pregnancy doesn’t mean you don’t still end up with a baby to deal with and you instead keep trying to find a way to make that still about bodily autonomy because the alternative is admitting that to an extent it isn’t because that idea is uncomfortable to grapple with.
it’s also legal to marry children in some states
Yeah, California do be like that (seriously, CA has no minimum age of marriage if you can get a judge to sign off on it). Until 2022 MA had no hard minimum and only required parental consent to marry under 18. Most other states with “child marriage” are something like hard minimum of 16 or 17 and requires sign off from parents, a judge, or both for marriage under 18 (likewise in most states the age of consent is 16).
Actually surprised no enterprising pedophile with enough money to bribe someone has tried marrying a very young child in CA (or until 2022 MA) then traveling to somewhere like NM where marriage is an exception to age of consent.
No, but I can say that if you ask me to remove your hand, what happens to the hand after it is removed is not a matter of your bodily autonomy.
says who? you can’t force people to donate organs even after they die.
trying to find a way to make that still about bodily autonomy
I’m not trying to make it about bodily autonomy. I’m saying what it is in reality, while you are arguing some abstract hypothetical situation to make an irrelevant point.
once again, if your hypothetical were a reality the whole argument would cease to exist. it would either be legal or illegal but it wouldn’t be the battleground that it is because the battle isn’t about babies.
it’s fine; I was expecting dumb fucks who make dumb arguments all the time to not read into all that. most of the downvotes probably assume I’m pro life despite the fact that I’m pro choice. not only that but I support abortion without restrictions. don’t care about viability as I think it’s a weak basis, I don’t care if it’s the tenth month.
I don’t think your example removes the woman from the equation. the transfer is still related to bodily autonomy. the fetus is part of the mother, and forcing someone to transfer it and keep it alive is still against that. you can’t force me to ejaculate into a cup, what makes it ok to force someone to transfer their fetus anywhere?
nah maybe if you’d have the baby conceived inside the artificial womb from the start…?
then you’d have other questions like is it ok to force a baby to be born without any parents in their life… whole other can of worms which is about the baby’s welfare, which is why this hypothetical will never be discussed by anti choice people because they don’t give a shit about the baby and aren’t the least bit interested in what would happen to them if you remove the woman from the equation.
It’s not “part of the mother” once it is no longer physically tethered to her, if it’s no longer physically attached to her body why would bodily autonomy be relevant? Like, the entire point is to separate bodily autonomy from being made responsible for a child, because it demonstrates that the argument isn’t really about bodily autonomy, not entirely.
To throw you another loop along these lines - if something that was part of your body remains part of your body once removed and you keep overriding power over what happens to it afterward would that mean after you donate blood you have absolute power over who is allowed to receive that blood henceforth?
Once it’s not attached to her body and is therefore not a matter of bodily autonomy, why shouldn’t she be compelled to provide for it’s continued existence whether or not she wants the child? Maybe threaten her with jail if she doesn’t comply with payments to keep the gestation going.
In this hypothetical no one is forcing anyone to transfer their fetus, they can carry the pregnancy or terminate the pregnancy as is their preference but what they can’t do is terminate the pregnancy and then kill the fetus, instead a terminated pregnancy doesn’t free you of the future child. Ending a pregnancy in this hypothetical doesn’t end the future responsibility for a child, which is why it’s illustrative of how it’s not entirely about bodily autonomy, not really.
And for a fun question, what do you think happens legally if you ejaculate somewhere (anywhere other than a vagina is fine for this hypothetical) and someone retrieves that sperm and manages to inseminate themselves with it against your will or even knowledge? I’ll give you a hint, it involves future responsibility for any resulting child. Same situation as applies for reproductive coercion, sexual assault and statutory rape for a person who produces the smaller reproductive cell (to use the US federal government approved phrasing).
if it is part of your body the removal is still the removal of part of your body. you can’t say it’s OK to cut off my hand because once it’s off, it’s no longer attached to me. as I said the only way you could remove bodily autonomy from the equation is if the fetus never enters the body (eg it all happens in the artificial womb).
and this entire hypothetical completely avoids my main point which is that the bodily autonomy problem comes into play not because of the pro-choice side. it’s because of the anti-choice side. the whole point of the entire conversation is the control over women, and the unborn is just a pretense.
that’s why this hypothetical will never be the problem because if the woman is not involved there wouldn’t be an anti-choice side because THEY. DON’T. CARE. ABOUT. THE FETUS. it’s never about the fetus. which is also why you see people moralize based on religion even though their religion doesn’t actually oppose abortion as a concept.
also the law you cite is stupid and doesn’t have any weight on what ought to happen. it’s also legal to marry children in some states, doesn’t make it ok.
No, but I can say that if you ask me to remove your hand, what happens to the hand after it is removed is not a matter of your bodily autonomy.
And I’m literally arguing that the pro-choice side isn’t being honest about it either, that claiming it’s exclusively about bodily autonomy is also just pretense. Notice that I’m suggesting a hypothetical where bodily autonomy and still having the child are detached from each other, where ending the pregnancy doesn’t mean you don’t still end up with a baby to deal with and you instead keep trying to find a way to make that still about bodily autonomy because the alternative is admitting that to an extent it isn’t because that idea is uncomfortable to grapple with.
Yeah, California do be like that (seriously, CA has no minimum age of marriage if you can get a judge to sign off on it). Until 2022 MA had no hard minimum and only required parental consent to marry under 18. Most other states with “child marriage” are something like hard minimum of 16 or 17 and requires sign off from parents, a judge, or both for marriage under 18 (likewise in most states the age of consent is 16).
Actually surprised no enterprising pedophile with enough money to bribe someone has tried marrying a very young child in CA (or until 2022 MA) then traveling to somewhere like NM where marriage is an exception to age of consent.
says who? you can’t force people to donate organs even after they die.
I’m not trying to make it about bodily autonomy. I’m saying what it is in reality, while you are arguing some abstract hypothetical situation to make an irrelevant point.
once again, if your hypothetical were a reality the whole argument would cease to exist. it would either be legal or illegal but it wouldn’t be the battleground that it is because the battle isn’t about babies.