What are you talking about?
I look at it as similar to how Reformacons don't understand the concept of "selfies." A term, improperly understood by someone who opposes it, gets trotted out on a frequent basis.
Trust me, that's true for men as well - I know, because I've talked to a lot of them.
No, the difference is that I don't claim to make a point about the specifics of the whole situation. What I tried to do is deconstruct the whole thing and look at all the elements on their own. That's where these comparisons come from, I do take all parts of the whole, and compare them to similar situations - and when I do that, I come to the conclusion that none of the elements would be an acceptable reason for a ban by themselves, and that there is no "interplay" between them that I would see as a good reason for why combining them is a game changer.I don't really see how you can make weird comparisons (it has been pointed repeatedly how the rape comparison is completely bogus and I already asked why body self-determination would be somewhat considered sacred and without exception) and then suddendly claim that a comparison is invalid
You claim it's about double-standards, but what I notice is that you are the one using double-standard : you consider body self-determination to be absolute and unhamperable regardless of your actions, unlike life or liberty. That is a double-standard.
It's more that because the consequences are more severe and because the agency of the woman has led her into a situation where another being would suffer if we allowed her the right, that we would find that highly immoral, but I still think it's more of a "feelings"-thing than that there's any good explanation for why her right that is otherwise handled as a universal right ends there.
Going to repeat myself, but I really don't see how "you created a life dependence on someone, so you have the obligation to fulfill this dependence" as "inconsistent".In the end, I agree with most people here, those are the same arguments that I'd make if I were to defend the ban, but still don't believe it's really a morally consistent stance.
And again, following this reasoning you would have right to life or death on any of your descendants. This is nonsensical.
It's creating someone new and putting them in a relationship of dependency. I fail to see the difference in term of responsibility. What makes you responsible is to create the dependency, how the life came into being is completely irrelevant.
It changes absolutely nothing, and I really don't see how it could. Your entire reasoning here makes no sense.
No it is not, like I said around 5 times now. The rest of your descendants, unless they all live in your womb, are not dependent on your body, so bodily integrity, or bodily autonomy don't apply at all.
No, I disagree. If you create a life and terminate it before it is able to sustain itself, then I don't think you are a murderer.
To you, that's obvious. To me it makes a lot of sense, and on top of that, I also understand your reasoning and why my conclusion is a different one from yours.
The freedom of the mother extends until it interacts with the life of the child. At that point the child's right to live takes priority. Done.
You're switching points. The body integrity argument is countered by "you put the baby in life dependency, so you have to hold your responsibilities".
So killing an infant that is under something like what, 2 years old, is not murder ?
Either that, or there is simply a lack of logical link between the premises and the conclusions
I'm not making that point at all, I'm making the point that if you're the creator of a being, and that being has not left the stage of being dependent on you, then it is not murder to cause their death, simply because bodily autonomy does trump the right to life, if living means being dependent on a host. The fact that you created that situation does simply not change that. (And now we're at the starting place for the fourth time)
Nope. But I did indeed phrase that extremely poorly, what I meant to say was of course that it does not need your body to sustain itself, or rather to be viable. Any responsibility that does not include having to leech off your body is a very different case, because bodily autonomy is not a factor.
A possible reason from your perspective, yes.Either that, or there is simply a lack of logical link between the premises and the conclusions
I might agree somewhat on the first part, but the second is just wrong, and we're constantly back to it because you haven't managed to actually make a good case for it.
Absolutely. I work in medical science to give folks the tools to override the barriers evolution puts up.
Forget the stairs. Getting drunk is enough for a misdemeanor. The law deals with such questions all the time. What is reasonable changes as medical knowledge changes.
At least that is a point I can work with. Basing rights on ideology is rather whimsical and emotional to say the least.
