Timeline for Is arguing pro choice because "a woman has the right to control her body" invalid?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 16, 2019 at 2:04 | comment | added | user9166 | Let us continue this discussion in chat. | |
| Jan 15, 2019 at 22:30 | comment | added | user9166 | @Cell So what is wrong with the actual logic, other than "most people don't see it that way". That is not an argument. We are talking about a principle people raise to avoid saving a life. It needs to be very sound. To me, it seems to have all kinds of holes. I have pointed them out, and you don't care. We violate this principle all the time, it is not a right. We already have a well-established right that covers this case, but the solution we have does not make the issue special enough for people who want it special. | |
| Jan 15, 2019 at 22:25 | comment | added | Cell | I think so. At least your argument would be more convincing if it was something most people can agree with then supporting controversy with more controversy. Are vaccines required? A quick search revealed to me that you can refuse out of conscience, in Canada at least. Unconscious medical aid is murky since you are not able to consent, but then again "do not resuscitate" requests are honoured, in Canada at least. | |
| Jan 15, 2019 at 22:06 | comment | added | user9166 | @Cell The intended example is controversial, but what I compare it to must not be? And some of them are not, emergency medicine is a good thing. And if I cannot open you up because I have to ask, that is over, too. So are required vaccinations, and a bunch of other stuff. It is the wrong focus, it is ad hoc, and it is impossible. I only stays seemingly relevant because our historical view of men is totally skewed. | |
| Jan 15, 2019 at 22:03 | comment | added | user9166 | @Cell That is because a very limited set of people are pushing for this right, and they are not thinking about men. I am not changing the meaning, I am just applying it to all of reality, because that is what rights are -- general principles. What does bodily autonomy mean if I can lock you up and cavity search you? If I can determine your occupation for a range of years, set your wages by fiat, and do damaging things to you if you do not work? It means nothing. But that is prison. So bodily autonomy eliminates prison. It is not a trick. It is just not ignoring anyone. | |
| Jan 15, 2019 at 21:54 | comment | added | Cell | @jobermark I think you are taking bodily autonomy too literally. I have never heard of anyone defending bodily autonomy and also outlawing prison. There is a difference between say being arrested for public urination/defecation and being told you are not allowed to go to the bathroom. Or being arrested for stealing food vs being denied the ability to eat. Finally your examples are controversial; maybe conscription was wrong, maybe execution is wrong. Especially since laws involving them change. | |
| Jan 15, 2019 at 21:17 | comment | added | user9166 | @Cell I am saying that we do not have this right. We never have. And either everyone has bodily autonomy, or nobody does. Nobody does. It would be impossible. It would still outlaw jail and make emergency medicine impossible. There are four examples, strike two and there is still an argument. It is still impossible. We have instead the normal, limited right we have always had, and it is already adequate. Advancing any right meant to apply only to men or women is also not OK. Rights cover everyone, and we need to look at what historically it would mean for everyone to have that right. | |
| Jan 15, 2019 at 18:36 | comment | added | Cell | I don't understand your point @jobermark. Are you trying to say those examples you listed are fair and should set some sort of precedence for laws? Because you know the ethics of conscription and execution are debatable topics. It doesn't make much sense to say women can't have bodily autonomy because example x without first defending something like the draft. The world isn't perfect, especially our laws. Do men even have to serve in military in the united states anymore? | |
| Jan 15, 2019 at 13:06 | comment | added | user9166 | No. This right does not exist. We had the draft, we imprison and even execute people, we perform surgery on those who come in unconscious... What we do have is the right to freedom from unwarranted interference -- in the US, the 4th amendment. Then the question is not a compromise between rights, it is about the definition of 'warrant' in each situation. At what level of certainty of saving another's life can I use you temporarily as a slave? Obviously, I can arrest you and compel action within reason for a limited time if you are obviously dangerous. We can negotiate from there. | |
| Jan 15, 2019 at 0:57 | history | answered | Mozibur Ullah | CC BY-SA 4.0 |