#before24 | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

anamericangirl · 2 years

Note

Hello, I’m the same pro choice anon who made the bodily autonomy argument! Couple of things to address actually,

“Personhood is not a philosophical concept”

It actually is and you kinda admitted yourself in your argument. It’s a legal concept. And if you want to be consistent in that argument, you would also have to admit that if a fetus has personhood ( which is what you are arguing it has ) then that would also mean a single-celled human zygote would have a right to sue in court, have a right to own and inherit property ect. Having a right to own or inherit property not just after birth but since conception, which would require a probate of the zygote's estate if it failed to implant in the mother's uterine lining and was passed out with the menses?And would then require a funeral, and a proper burial? If the law suddenly just defined an unborn human as a "person” that would be the case. But anyways, that’s not the main core of my argument so let’s move on.

“People who believed personhood could be granted, didn’t grant it to slaves and Jews.”

Okay, first of all. I was dreading you would make this infamous argument that pro lifers love to make, I don’t think you want to bring up slavery or the holocaust in your argument. Not only is it incredibly disingenuous but in doing so, you have to take in the fact that these slaves were autonomous beings before they were forcing them into slavery. In fact, they had to take away their autonomy in order to make them slaves. To compare slaves, fully autonomous people, to a fetus who doesn’t have its own autonomy, no agency , not even a fully developed body yet inside of the womb of the autonomous being is not the route I think you want to take. And then the other question is, who’s autonomy is the one being invaded in? The pregnant person was there first. The pregnant person is the one with its own autonomy. The pregnant person is the one sustaining its own homeostasis, not the fetus who is only taking from that body. I really don’t think you want to compare something that has caused so much generational trauma to the medical procedure of removing a non sentient fetus.

If we are going to compare a slave to anyone in this conversation, it would be the pregnant person who’s bodily resources are being taken away without their consent ( With the addition that slave owners forced slaves to give birth as well, pregnant enslaved women were more costly to buyers. )

“Also, it's very important to know that the fetus is not infringing on the mother merely by existing. It's existing exactly as it's supposed to.”

That my friend, is a naturalistic fallacy. To claim that something is good just because it’s “natural” . The claim of what is/ought to be. To try and define values in terms of natural properties is simply a fallacious argument and illogical. For example, “Breastfeeding is the natural way to feed children, therefore mothers ought to breastfeed and not use baby formula.” Or “ Vaccines are unnatural therefore they are bad for you” or “ Human females have the capacity to give birth therefore all women should be obligated to have children.”

Also you simply can’t consent to a biological process, the chance of getting pregnant is still there no matter what precautions you use. That biological process can still occur even in S/A cases. Unless you want to enforce celibacy which is odd and a weird way of saying you’d also wish to criminalize sex.

“Some babies are born very early, like before24 weeks, which is when a fetus is considered viable.If a baby is born at 20-22 weeks they are not considered viable?”

If it’s viable at 20-22 weeks then it’s viable. If that baby that was born is alive and capable of living outside the womb without the mother then no, it should not be killed because it now has its own bodily autonomy. It is no longer non-viable.

When you justify violating the rights of the fetus because they aren't viable, are you claiming that viability is when a person has rights and is no longer to kill?

I’m claiming that you have be viable in order to have those bodily autonomy rights in the first place. How can a fetus that can’t survive outside a womb and without the mother’s body have its own bodily autonomy when it’s directly infringing on her bodily autonomy? How can you have those rights when you are directly dependent of another person’s body who already has those rights that you are infringing upon.

“You are not killing a person by not donating an organ. You are killing a person by performing an abortion.”

Well, the action of not donating an organ to the person who is dying and that you caused to be in that state is undeniably killing them. But you are correct, it’s not an unlawful killing. Which is what my point is, a pregnant woman denying her bodily autonomy to a non-viable fetus is not a unlawful killing. How is denying your bodily organ sustain the life a person you put in a critical state not similar or the same as you denying to give up your bodily organs to sustain the life of a fetus? Please explain that further.

You made a claim saying that the law already infringes on our bodily autonomy with the use of seat belts , masks and ect.

That’s not what bodily autonomy rights are, bodily autonomy are when nobody has a right over your bodily organs and nobody has a right to use your body in order to sustain their own life. So yea, bodily autonomy rights TRUMPS over the right to life and they always have. No other human life has ever had the right to use another person’s body for their direct survival. Regardless of if they die or not as a result.

Also don’t really want to dive into your entire excuse for the foster care system and healthcare system part right now , I’ll send another ask replying to that maybe since this is already long enough.

Thank you.

"It [personhood] actually is [a philosophical concept] and you kinda admitted yourself in your argument. It’s a legal concept."

I actually didn't though? I said the definition of person is human and fetuses are human beings from conception. Personhood is not a legal concept. There is a legal concept of personhood for dealing with matters of law, but it is not the definitive concept of personhood that we use to determine who is a person and who is not.

It is your biology that determines whether or not you are a person. The word "person" may not be a scientific classification, but it is absolutely a word we use to describe human beings. Every human being is a person. Name one whose not.

Also, I think it's very dangerous to believe personhood is a philosophical concept, especially when you are going to use it as a reason to kill human beings who you philosophically don't acknowledge as persons.

"And if you want to be consistent in that argument, you would also have to admit that if a fetus has personhood ( which is what you are arguing it has ) then that would also mean a single-celled human zygote would have a right to sue in court..."

I mean no I wouldn't because whether or not you are a person is a biological fact that is woven into your genes, not whatever the law defines it as. The law can be wrong.

And, also, I don't really have an inherent problem with a single celled human zygote having all those rights even if they can't appreciate or exercise them lol. But if your belief is they aren't persons because they can't exercise all the rights people have, then you must also be consistent. Do you assert that a two day old newborn baby has the right to sue in court, have a right to own and inherit property, etc. Do we need to probate the estate of the baby (which isn't required in every state) if it dies before leaving the hospital? And if we don't do that does that mean that baby isn't a person?

I just think it's very misguided to decide who is a person based on what the law says about it and what legal procedures are done and not on the fact that they are biologically human beings, and thus, a person.

"Okay, first of all. I was dreading you would make this infamous argument that pro lifers love to make, I don’t think you want to bring up slavery or the holocaust in your argument."

Oh I absolutely do want to bring those up. You're the one who doesn't want me to bring them up. The arguments you make for abortion are the same ones made for slavery and the holocaust and I understand you don't like that being pointed out but I'm not going to refrain from doing so just because it makes you uncomfortable. Even though I've seen pro-lifers bring it up a lot, I've yet to see a pro-choicer make a good argument for why it's not the same so I'm going to do that until I get one.

Besides, you brought up the infamous organ donation argument that pro-choicers love to make so it's only fair.

"Not only is it incredibly disingenuous but in doing so, you have to take in the fact that these slaves were autonomous beings before they were forcing them into slavery."

It's not disingenuous. I actually 100% believe they are the same argument and you're advocating for killing people with the exact same reasoning that slavers and the Nazis used. Scientifically, we know the unborn are human beings. There's no debate about it in science yet you are creating arbitrary standards of what it means to be a human being that have no scientific basis whatsoever in order to kill people, just like was done in slavery and the holocaust. They just chose different arbitrary standards than you have.

So, are you asserting right now, that it is autonomy that makes one a human being? Babies are not autonomous for months after being born. Is it ok to kill them?

"In fact, they had to take away their autonomy in order to make them slaves."

Kind of like you're taking away all rights from the unborn baby, including the right to life and bodily autonomy, by killing it.

But here is the reason I bring up the slave/holocaust argument. It is revealing a big contradiction in your belief system that you do not seem to realize. You asserted that personhood is a legal and philosophical concept. Is this true or is there a universal truth about what constitutes a person outside of law? It can't be both. If what you said at the beginning of your ask is correct, and personhood is a philosophical concept decided by law then you have to believe that slaves and jews were not, in fact, people, because the law said they were not. If you believe they were people, which you seem to, then you are saying personhood is not a philosophical and legal concept and personhood is a determinable truth that is not philosophical or decided by law. So which is it?

"To compare slaves, fully autonomous people, to a fetus who doesn’t have its own autonomy, no agency , not even a fully developed body yet inside of the womb of the autonomous being is not the route I think you want to take."

It absolutely is the route I want to take because I know that being fully autonomous, having agency or being fully developed is not what makes someone a human person. I don't think you want to take the route that you must have those things to be a person because every condition you list can also be applied to someone outside the womb and if you remain consistent with the conditions you list for why the fetus isn't a person then you are saying there are human beings who are living outside the womb that you also don't consider to be people.

People aren't fully autonomous right after being born. At what point are people fully autonomous and thus are not ok to kill or force into slavery anymore?

Babies don't have agency right after being born. When do people get agency and thus are not ok to kill or force into slavery anymore?

People aren't fully developed until years after being born. In fact, your brain isn't fully developed until the age of 25. So is it ok to kill and enslave people under 25?

Those are the conditions you listed for why the fetus is less of a person so if you're consistent with that belief then you must also believe that a three month old is less of a person than an 18 year old. And an 18 year old is less of a person than a 25 year old.

Is that the route you want to take?

And then the other question is, who’s autonomy is the one being invaded in? The pregnant person was there first. The pregnant person is the one with its own autonomy. The pregnant person is the one sustaining its own homeostasis, not the fetus who is only taking from that body. I really don’t think you want to compare something that has caused so much generational trauma to the medical procedure of removing a non sentient fetus.

If you believe autonomy is a human right then you have that right by the nature of being human, not by being born. A woman's autonomy isn't being invaded by pregnancy. If she's pregnant, she chose to engage in an act that the sole biological function of is reproduction. Your rights aren't being violated because you chose to have sex and it ended a way you didn't want.

I really don't think you want to be saying it's ok to kill babies just because they aren't autonomous. Bodily autonomy is not license to kill. If exercising your bodily autonomy requires you to kill an innocent person, you don't have the right to do that.

Bodily autonomy has limitations and those limitations are present when another person is going to be harmed or killed. And that's what going on in an abortion. An innocent person is being intentionally killed.

No, a pregnant woman is in no way comparable to a slave and it's absurd to say so. It's also minimizing what slavery is and very disrespectful to actual victims of slavery. Getting pregnant and giving birth is not slavery in any way, shape or form. No one says a woman must get pregnant. In fact, if a woman doesn't want a child I'm all for her not having one and choosing not to get pregnant. But it's not slavery to say you can't kill a baby you already have. And I don't think you want to be comparing slavery to not being able to kill your baby.

"That my friend, is a naturalistic fallacy. To claim that something is good just because it’s “natural",...."

Well my argument wasn't "it's natural and therefore good" so you're going to need to make sure you understand my argument before you try to refute it.

My argument was it's not infringing on her by existing. Natural biological process are not "infringing" on people's rights. The woman chose to risk starting the process of reproduction and reproduction is not infringing on the woman by happening. That was my argument.

If you invite someone into your home they aren't infringing on your rights by accepting the invitation.

"Also you simply can’t consent to a biological process, the chance of getting pregnant is still there no matter what precautions you use. That biological process can still occur even in S/A cases. Unless you want to enforce celibacy which is odd and a weird way of saying you’d also wish to criminalize sex."

Precisely. Which is why this is not a matter of consent. It's a biological process that can happen whether you want it to or not. If you don't want to go through the process and you are going to kill the baby if you get pregnant it would be better for you to abstain from sex altogether until you're ready to go through the process. I don't want to enforce celibacy but I do think people who are going to kill their baby if they get pregnant shouldn't be having sex. At all.

My core point here is once you are pregnant reproduction has happened. Now the baby exists. It is a human being, a person, from the moment of conception and if you abort the pregnancy at any point you are killing a human being and you have failed to give any example where bodily autonomy lets you intentionally kill an innocent person.

It's not a matter of consent. It's a matter of protecting human life. The baby does not need continuous consent to exist. You don't have the right to kill them.

"If it’s viable at 20-22 weeks then it’s viable. If that baby that was born is alive and capable of living outside the womb without the mother then no, it should not be killed because it now has its own bodily autonomy. It is no longer non-viable."

It's not viable. That's the whole point. Even after it's born at that age it's still not viable. They usually don't even survive after being born that young. So if a baby can be born at that age and we can't kill them, what's the difference when they are in the womb at that age? It's exactly the same level of viability both inside and outside the womb.

I think you need to define what you mean by viable. And where was it decided you only have human rights if you're viable?

"I’m claiming that you have be viable in order to have those bodily autonomy rights in the first place. How can a fetus that can’t survive outside a womb and without the mother’s body have its own bodily autonomy when it’s directly infringing on her bodily autonomy? How can you have those rights when you are directly dependent of another person’s body who already has those rights that you are infringing upon."

And, where, exactly, did you get the idea that you have to be viable to have autonomy rights? Is bodily autonomy a human right or not? Because if it's is human right then you have it by nature of being a human.

The fetus is not infringing on her bodily autonomy, as I've already explained and you've failed to prove otherwise. You just keep claiming it's an infringement but haven't refuted any of my arguments that explain how it's not an infringement.The fetus is a human being and has the same rights that the mother has.

The fetus has the right to life. And bodily autonomy is not the right to kill innocent people.

"Well, the action of not donating an organ to the person who is dying and that you caused to be in that state is undeniably killing them. But you are correct, it’s not an unlawful killing. Which is what my point is, a pregnant woman denying her bodily autonomy to a non-viable fetus is not a unlawful killing. How is denying your bodily organ sustain the life a person you put in a critical state not similar or the same as you denying to give up your bodily organs to sustain the life of a fetus? Please explain that further."

You are not causing them to be in that state. If they need an organ they are already in that state. You are not saving their life. And that's completely different than killing someone. It's not a "lawful killing" because you are not killing people if you don't donate an organ. They are dying a natural death. We don't have the responsibility of saving people who are dying, but we do have the responsibility of not intentionally killing people who would continue to live without our interference.

If you are the one who put the person in the critical state that made them need the organ, then you are not required to donate the organ but you will be charged with murder if they die if you literally caused them to be in that position. So you don't have to save their life, but if they die you will be held responsible.

And abortion is not simply a matter of refusing to donate an organ. Do you know what must be done to prevent the baby from using your body? You have to rip its body apart limb by limb. Induce a heart attack. Crush its skull. These are very violent acts that would be considered crimes at any point outside of the womb and it's very disingenuous of you to compare it to simply not donating an organ. You do see how those are different, do you not?

Can you commit those same kind of acts on a person who you refuse to donate an organ to?

"You made a claim saying that the law already infringes on our bodily autonomy with the use of seat belts , masks and ect.

I would really like to know where you're getting all your definitions for the assertions you make because it seems like you're making them up or just taking parts of them that you feel you can use to support abortion and discarding the parts that don't fit your belief system.

Bodily autonomy includes the right to govern your organs and using your body to sustain others, but that's not all it covers. Bodily autonomy is simply the right to govern ones own body. That's it. Not just about what you do with your organs or if someone needs assistance to live but in all matters that involve anything about your body inside or out of it.

So you think bodily autonomy is applicable if you want to kill an innocent person you created through a very specific act but it's not applicable if the government is telling you what to wear? You see how that makes no sense, don't you? If it applies in such severe cases and allows you to kill a person, then surely it covers less severe situations like if you don't want to walk outside with a cloth over your face when that hurts absolutely no one.

Skin is an organ. So if bodily autonomy is the right over your bodily organs than that has to include what you choose to put on your skin. So why is it different? Why doesn't bodily autonomy apply to other areas when you're being told what to do with your body?

Bodily autonomy does not trump the right to life and you have not given a single case where it does. The right to life is not the right not to die. The right to life is the right to live your life as you see fit until you die a natural death or forfeit that right based on your own choices. Someone else does not have the right to intentionally end your life if they don't consent to your existence. You don't get to say someone can't use your organs or body once they are already using it. Like if you donate an organ and then after the procedure is done and the person is using it you can't change your mind and take it back. Your rights end where another persons' begin.

If bodily autonomy trumps the right to life then that will apply in multiple other situations outside the womb. So give me a real life example of when we are allowed to intentionally end the life of another innocent, even perfectly healthy person, to exercise bodily autonomy. And organ donation doesn't count because you're not killing anyone by not donating an organ. I'm not talking about not making the decision to save an already dying person. I'm talking about a time when you're legally allowed to actively and intentionally end the life of another innocent human being who would have continued to live without your interference.

#anon #answered #abortion #pro-life

10 notes · View notes