Does a woman's right to sex outweigh the right of a fetus?

Isn't that the same question in the analogy in the opening post?

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Because humans have been defying nature since day one....

I have many times....I've had a polio shot when I was a kid and have gone to a doctor whenever I am sick or injured....I just didn't lay down and let "nature" take it's course, I defied it and lived ....why wouldn't YOU do that???

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
WHY would she have to do that????

Then why can't you answer it???

 

There is a "vaccine" for pregnancy. If the woman wants to get it.

 

Because I don't have to. I only showed you an analogy, to be able to look at that question in a different light.

 

She chose to be placed in that more specific scenario, when she did not have to be.

Nature holds her in that "resort" (so to speak) "against her will".

Now you get it?

 

FoxHastings describing why kaz's "nature " doesn't rule and see the HILARIOUSLY silly reply :

I've had a polio shot when I was a kid and have gone to a doctor whenever I am sick or injured....I just didn't lay down and let "nature" take it's course, I defied it and lived ....why wouldn't YOU do that???

like a comet

 

It's not because you are putting the fetus outside the woman such that it is not in violation of her bodily autonomy. The bold is partly correct. All woman have a choice between continuing her pregnancy or ending it. Neither case causes her to have to give up sex. Currently, the only procedures pre-viability will end up killing it. That may change. Post-viability, technically, legally (although no one has ever tried it to my knowledge) she can ask for induced labor to removed the offspring from her body, and then time will tell if it survives or not.

 

False conflation. Murder is the illegal killing of another. Thus in most 1st world countries abortion is not murder.

 

No because you put her there against her will, per your OP. You provided nothing in your OP that showed that something she voluntarily did, put her in that involuntary situation. I get that choosing to have sex means choosing to risk pregnancy unless the woman has had her ovaries and/or uterus removed. I agree that such is a voluntary action that can result in an involuntary situation, especially in light of any BC efforts taken. You OP is nothing like that. Or more to point, you failed to include those details if you were thinking about them. Just admit that you botched you OP hypothetical up royally. Nothing in it actually parallels the situation of a woman pregnant.

 

A woman is naturally in that situation, against her will. That's just nature.

I think you are making a logical fallacy, confusing the woman being in the resort with the woman taking up the offer to be put in that more specific situation where she will have to kill a fetus.

That's not true. She took up the voluntary offer, within that involuntary situation.

Here's the voluntary part: "The woman is told if she takes a sledgehammer and smashes the tank, a very attractive man will be brought to her for her to have sex with."

 

No it does not because nature does not make her do without sex because she is pregnant (which is the closest anything in your hypothetical comes to), nor is she required to destroy anything in order to have sex. You are falsely conflating the ability to have sex with other actions.

Now you are turning things all around. There are lots of things a woman can choose to do. She can choose to kill her own genetic offspring that is gestating in a surrogate's womb by stabbing the surrogate. That doesn't mean she has a right to stab the surrogate nor make the surrogate have an abortion, since the surrogate and the genetic offspring are outside the woman and not violating the woman's bodily autonomy.

What voluntary offer? She did not volunteer to enter into that spa. Your OP made that clear. She also didn't smash or not smash the AW. You ended the set up at the choice point asking if she had the right to smash the AW in order to satisfy the whims of a third party withholding something from here.

Sure she can voluntarily take that action, but her taking or not taking that action is not the factor that is preventing her from having sex. It is the third party that holds her there against her will. Without that factor, she can just walk out of the spa without touching the AW, and find a man to have sex with. Her having sex is not dependent upon the smashing of the AW/killing the fetus. It is dependant upon a person holding her until she does it. That is a conscious choice of the third party, so no that's not nature as the third party.

 

Huh?

I think you are misunderstanding.

Maybe this is just an issue of timing. Do you think the sequence of events matters so much here?

If she has sex, and she is determined to have an abortion if she gets pregnant, then she is risking destroying something, isn't she?

 

We're just going around in circles. So what? In real life it is nature and reality that holds her against her will. Nature forces her to kill a fetus if she doesn't want to be pregnant (and if she wanted to have sex in the first place). What part of that do you have trouble getting?

 

Actually yes, sequence matters very much. It can change what options are available and what rights are in play and which has dominance over the other.

But only something inside her, per her rights. That is where your hypothetical breaks down by putting the fetus outside her. She has no right to destroy anything outside her body if it is not causing her damage or otherwise threatening her health. Especially not if it belongs to someone else, which is what your hypothetical placed everything in the spa as.

Yes we do seem to be going around in circles, but mostly because you are conflating the ability to have sex with whether or not the woman has an abortion. If the woman wants sex and doesn't want to get pregnant, she uses protection/bc, be it chemical (pill) or physical (condom, IUD, etc). Just like if you don't want to break a bone while skiing, you wear protective gear. In both cases, you risk that which you are trying to avoid. If your protection fails, then there are options to correct the conditions that result from that failure.

You have been trying to use a sequence of have an abortion then you can have sex again, as if having sex is stopped by being pregnant. The true order is have sex, see if you get pregnant, if so decide whether to remain pregnant, and you can still have sex while making the decision.

 

No, I don't think so. Whether or not it's inside of her is not relevant to her rights, in this analogy.

Why? Because her actions led to that situation. She had a choice over it.

I don't think you are properly utilizing logic.

In my analogy, she places herself in a situation where she has to choose between killing the fetus and death.

So how can you say the fetus being inside of her has anything to do with this in this situation?

Death is obviously much worse than her having to give up her rights by having the fetus be inside of her.

My analogy still totally holds. Claiming the fetus is not inside of her so my analogy doesn't hold is just an illogical red herring.

She put the fetus there! Just like in my hypothetical analogy where she creates the situation where she has to kill the fetus.

 

It is extremely relevant. It is the entire basis by which she has the right. Trying to take the fetus, in and of itself out of her, is what causes the analogy to collapse.

Not in the hypothetical you built in the OP. Quite for me the part of the OP where she did anything that les to that situation.

First off no she didn't. The above challenge remains. Secondly, you are changing from your original OP hypothetical. Her choice was kill the fetus or not getting sex. You had her there for a year, and said it was pleasant. So she is obviously well fed and otherwise cared for sans sex and freedom outside the spa. If you want to try for a similar but different hypothetical, sure, start a new thread. But don't try to claim conditions that were not in your OP.

Because you asked about her right to destroy the fetus in the AW. She could take that action, but doesn't mean it was her right to. Since you had made it clear that it wasn't hers (she had been there for a year, with no sex and the fetus was less than 9 months in gestation), nor was it imposing on her bodily autonomy. It was just sitting there.

Sure. And had the AW also be dosing her with lethal radiation in addition, then because of the violation of her bodily autonomy, she would have had the right to destroy the AW even though it meant killing the fetus inside. But that was not your OP hypothetical set up.

It does not hold because none of your subsequent claims are true based upon your initial set up. That is why you analogy is collapsing.

How?!? She was there at least 4 months, 3 at an absolute minimum, before the fetus was a freshly fertilized egg! She had no one to have sex with nor anyone who could have taken a egg out of here with her consent for the whole year before the conditions of destroy the AW to have sex was given.

 

I don't think you understand.
In my analogy, at that point the woman has to kill the fetus or be killed.
In real life, at that point the woman has to kill the fetus or continue with the fetus growing inside of her.

Are you trying to argue that if the fetus is growing inside of her, that gives her more rights over it than if her life depends on it?

Think about this.

First you have to stop and ask yourself exactly why it is you believe the woman should have rights over it because it is inside her.
Then, examine that reason and compare that reason to a woman having to a woman having to kill to save her own life.

If you don't believe it's okay for a woman to kill to save her own life, why do you believe it's okay for the woman to kill because it's inside her?

Maybe you need to more closely examine or question your own beliefs.

 

But she made the choice to be put in a position where she would have to kill the fetus, when she chose to have sex.

The resort worker didn't just put a gun to her head and tell her to kill the fetus. The resort worker presented her an option. When she said yes, she knew a gun would then be held to her head and she would have to kill the fetus.

 

You realize that just because I do not quote your entire post does not mean the quote was cherry picked?

It means I was responding to one part of your quote. Is there some specific reason why leaving out the rest of it was unfair to you? No? Can't think of anything?

 

It seems that you are the one who doesn't understand. You NEVER set up anything in your OP hypothetical where it was kill or be killed. It was kill to have sex or go without sex. The woman's death was not a part of the hypothetical. Quite from the OP where it was.

True enough, but that choice has nothing to do with whether or not she has sex, nor gives her a right to kill a fetus outside of her body.

If the external fetus is not actually what is causing her harm, yes. As noted, if the AW in your hypothetical was harming her (I used bathing the woman in harmful radiation earlier), then she still doesn't have the right to kill the fetus, but her right to stop the machine from killing her (since she is trapped in the spa and on the assumption that the radiation covers the spa) will result in her killing the fetus. In that situation, similar to abortions today based upon current medical technology and knowledge, the killing of the fetus is a result not a right.

Bodily autonomy. All people have the right to determine what goes in or stays in their body, or what gets removed. No person has a right to any bodily resource of another, for any reason.

All persons have a right to kill to save their own life, but they do not have a right to kill that which is not trying to kill them. I do not have the right to kill you to stop a dog from killing me. I have the right to kill the dog to stop it from killing me. Since the fetus is not killing the woman in your hypothetical, she does not have the right to kill it, because it is neither using her bodily resources without consent of the woman, nor trying to kill her.

Explained above.

Maybe you need to examine the details of what you are claiming more closely. Especially since you keep changing them.

 

Conflation and assumption. When she has sex, she puts herself in a position where she may or may not get pregnant. That is a separate event from any choice she has to make if she does get pregnant. Yes it's good to consider what one will do if any of the possible outcomes of an action occur. Which means in having sex, she should consider what she will do if she gets pregnant. That can mean having an abortion. But that is a choice that always gets made at the time, because right up to the point of the actual procedure, she can still also decide to not abort as well.

True enough, although you never mentioned how she was told of her option on how to get the man for sex after the killing of the fetus (which is opposite of the real life situation). But that doesn't matter. Because she still does not have the right to kill the fetus nor to destroy anything that is not killing her nor keeping her in the spa. She would have a right to destroy a wall or door or window, or to kill the one holding her there or any who try to stop her from leaving. They are the objects and people who are in violation of her rights, not the AW or the fetus inside it.

What option in the OP was given where a gun would be put to her head after she decided yes to do something she had no right to do?

 

It seems like the parts you can't answer or are too pertinent or show how wrong you are, are the parts you avoid ..

 

Sex is an integral part of being human. Beyond that there are the obvious cases of the woman not having a choice.

Today, we have a wide range of contraceptive solutions, but none of them are perfect (save castration).

Government and legal systems do not have the capability to make sane decisions in this arena. And, women absolutely DO have a right to their bodies.

 

No they don't. There are numerous bodily rights they do not have. (The right to put illegal drugs into their own bodies, the right to invite a younger boy to put his bodily appendage in her body, it goes on and on)

What really makes the right not to have to go through with a pregnancy so special that she has the right to end someone else's life?

Plus you are just taking this off topic. If you believe she has an absolute right to her body, then she has the right to kill someone else if she needs to to have sex. Isn't that true?

Otherwise the woman did NOT have to kill someone else to exercise her "bodily right" of not being pregnant.

Don't you understand? You can't CREATE a situation where you have the right to violate someone else's rights based on your own bodily rights when YOU created that situation and dilemma in the first place. Her bodily rights (even assuming she had them) doesn't justify it.

Get it? She PUT the fetus in there. So unless you argue that she has the right to kill someone to have sex, I don't see how you can logically argue her bodily rights give her the right to abort.

It would be kind of like kidnapping someone, dragging them inside my own house, and then shooting them and claiming I had the right to because they were inside my home.

Isn't your entire argument based on the claim that she has the right to kill so she doesn't have to be pregnant, or was there something else?

Some in actuality, I think you are just subtly trying to change the topic from what the argument in this thread actually is.

She doesn't have the right to kill, because she didn't need to do that to not to be pregnant. There was another way.

So it all goes back to the original argument about sex.