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

So she does have the right to kill a fetus to have sex?

 

No, the issue with your comment about sex is consent. In fact, if both partners are below the age of consent, it isn't a crime in most places.

Trying to equate drug law and sex law makes no sense.

 

What's that?

So an underaged party cannot consent in this relationship, you say?

Sounds like abortion to me.

 

You need to get a grip.

 

That's what it comes down to. You know it. Logic leads to that inevitable conclusion.

It sounds bad, and that's because it is!

Her "right" to get an abortion comes down to whether she has the right to kill for sex.

The two are equivalent!

 

No, it sounds bad because it is just plain ridiculous.

No law a legislature can make knows the full range of issues that apply. And, regardless of your beliefs, not everybody shares them.

In fact the majority of America is in favor of abortion being an option.

The decision has to belong to the woman, who is informed by her doctor.

So far, you aren't presenting reasons people all need to switch to your personal belief system.

 

Is that your argument against my claim in the opening post, or do you have any others?

Everything else sounds like you are trying to change the topic.

 

Your OP is an obscenity.

 

The fact that there are multiple laws that violate a person's right to bodily autonomy does not negate the fact of any given one of them being a violation to that right. Laws against drug use is indeed such a violation, but a separate thread unto itself. Also note that there is a difference between the right to actually put that drug in the body, and actions under the influence of that drug. Just as one can legally consume alcohol, but it is illegal to engage in actions that endanger others while under the influence, so too would it be for any drug.

On the assumption that you are referring to a minor, then you are trying to cite a case where she would be in violation of the minor's rights if she did that actions. Because the minor cannot give informed consent she would be in violation of his bodily autonomy rights.

The problem here is that you are trying to look at it as pregnancy as the only example of bodily autonomy. Let's look at another example. Rape. If a man is having sex with a woman and she withdraws consent during the act, and fails to comply, she has the right to try to stop him. While termination is not her first allowable choice, if nothing else is working she is perfectly within her rights to kill him to stop the violation. This applies to any violation of bodily autonomy. In the case of pregnancy, there is nothing prior to the termination option. That doesn't mean that will always be the case with the advancement of medical technology and such. If there were other options available to end the pregnancy without terminating the offspring, AND that does not cause more bodily damage to the woman than the abortion, then yes, that would have to be her first option.

No because that would be a violation of that other person's bodily autonomy. She would be the violator in that case and the other would be within their rights to kill her if not other method of getting her to stop worked.

As has been noted before, she does not have a right to kill in and of itself. The termination of the ZEF is a result of the right, not the right itself.

When you violate another person's rights, you in turn are limited in which rights protect you. For example. I have the right to go where I want. But that doesn't override your right of private property. If I violation that right, my right of movement no longer applies to me. If I continue to violate your personal property right, you have the right to escalate. At first my right to life does indeed come into play. However, if I continue to violate the private property right and maybe even escalate that violating you bodily autonomy right in physically fight you, you can escalate up to physical violence yourself, and even up to killing me.

Now none of that had the condition of you having caused the situation. And it wasn't intended to. It was the foundation for the next part to show that right are not consistent and the violator of rights loses enforcement of some of their rights. Not all but some. So if you responded to that before reading this with an argument that it didn't parallel because of the lack of cause, you can delete it.

To move onto another example where cause is present, let's say that you are driving drunk (not that I assume you personally ever would) and cause a motor accident. You wake up from the accident in the hospital. You are actually fine, but for some reason the doctors have hooked you to a machine which is hooked to the other driver, and that combination is keeping that other person alive. It might only last a few days or it might last for years. You have the right to end the use of your body to sustain that person even though doing so will instantly kill them. But according to you, because you caused it, you should be legally obligated because you can't kill someone for a situation you caused.

Now that was an example of an involuntary situation, one you didn't intend to happen, but you know could happen when you took those actions. You didn't even have to be drunk for the scenario. You could have decided to take some risk because the way looked clear, and it actually wasn't. It's still you that caused it.

Now here is the clincher. And let's go with something very realistic. You volunteered to donate an organ to another person. They are in dire straights and you are their last chance. If they don't get this from you, they die. You still have the right, up to the moment they put you under, while that organ is still in you, to withdraw your consent, even though it means killing the other person. And you caused the situation, since you volunteering ended any search for another donor. By your arguments, you have no right to stop them from taking that organ.

Having engaged in action that set up the situation does not mean you cannot withdraw from it. By that argument, if a woman engages in sex with a man, and he begins hurting her, she can withdraw her consent. You are saying that she has to take the rape instead of killing him if nothing else gets him to stop. After all she set up the situation.

The problem with that argument is that the kidnapping would be the initial violation of rights. The woman did not kidnap the offspring. Where did she kidnap it from? Especially if she was trying to prevent it from coming into her in the first place. To work it with your parallel, that would be the equivalent of locking the doors knowing that someone might manage to get around them and get in anyway. Or holding a party in the yard with the doors to the house locked, but someone got in anyway. Are you telling me that you would not have the right to throw them out?

No it is not. Her right is to end the use of her bodily resources that she either did not consent to or withdrew her consent to. The only method for that pre-viability is one that results in the termination of the offspring. As noted many time before, if an option were available that could end the pregnancy, and the risks associated along with it, without terminating the offspring, then we have a basis for why she can't have an abortion in and of itself. But she would still have the right to end the pregnancy.

And what pray tell, is that other way. I hope that you are not going with the wait till the end of it pregnancy argument. Because with that you might as well tell a rape victim that they have to wait till the end of the rape to have the violation end.

No it doesn't because there is no connection between the ability to have sex and the abortion. Your conflation has not worked from moment one. The very fact that sex can be had whether one is pregnant or not proves that out.

 

I give him credit for making a good parallel. The issue is the same. If bodily autonomy allows for ejecting a ZEF from the body then it also allows for one to put whatever they want into their body. It's just a failed argument because it assumes that because one law that violates rights exists, then others are allowed to. Besides when it comes down to it, the issue isn't whether an act is illegal or legal. It's whether there is a right or not, and whether a right is violated by law.

 

And that is different from the situation of abortion how?

Seems like that was still a valid parallel.

Remember, in the situation of abortion the claim is that the woman's bodily rights over the inside of her body override the rights of someone else who is inside her body.

If the woman has the right to remove someone from her body, why would it be wrong to invite someone else to partially insert themselves into her body?

All I am asking for is a little logical consistency.

 

We start from an order of violation. In abortion, the offspring is the one that has the initial violation. Keep in mind that the violator does not have to be sentient to be in violation of one's bodily autonomy. It could be an insect, or even a thorn. If she doesn't consent to it being here, that is a violation. Granted, those examples are easily remedied and don't involve any other potential sentient life. But the violation occurs regardless. In your example of inviting the minor's "bodily appendage" (and young enough I guess that doesn't have to be limited to a sex organ) the woman is the initial violator. This would not be any different with a female rapist and a male victim. She is still the initial violator of bodily autonomy, and he has the right to end the violation, by violence or even death if nothing else works to end it.

First off, you specifically stated about inviting the minor to put something inside her. So it's not inside her body yet. Regardless, given the minor's inability to provide informed consent she is still the initial violator.

In and of itself, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. That's what sex is after all. And at any time she can withdraw that consent, and they must get out. However in the case of a minor, since they are unable to provide informed consent, such an action becomes a violation of their rights.

It is consistent. The problem is you want to treat all situations is if they were exactly the same and they are not. A rule/law/right can apply consistently, and still have different results because of different conditions. This is especially true when you have conflicting right and one has to be in override of the other.

 

So you concede that technically this does not actually have to do with the woman's "bodily rights", but is a far more specific subcategory of that.

You believe she may not have all "bodily rights" in general, but has the right "not to be violated".

Because that could change many other Pro-Choice arguments.

 

Like I've already stated, that is irrelevant, because that same thing could apply to the fetus too.

As already stated.
Applies to abortion too.
Come on, this should have been obvious to you.

But you don't seem to be very good here at explaining how those two situations are different.

 

If you want to demonstrate consistency, they you need to address fertilized eggs as a whole.

You would need to make strong statements concerning IVF and cryogenics.

Are you ready to do that?

 

No I do not concede that. You are trying to make your arguments as if only a woman has bodily autonomy rights. Hate to break it to you, but all persons have bodily autonomy rights. The question then becomes who is violating whose rights under what conditions and what is the minimum necessary to end the violation.

 

What fetus? At the time of her actions, no fetus, Zygote or any other person exists for her to violate their bodily autonomy rights. Especially since by using birth control she would specifically be NOT inviting the ZEF into her body, and yet it came in anyway.

I've done quite well as others will attest to, even those who disagree with me. You are not accepting what is being presented and changing the goal post when a proper explanation is given you. It's why you keep changing the premises of your OP hypothetical.

 

The issue I was quoting you on there was about consent of someone who cannot give consent.
You seem to have changed the subject.

 

no. I'm pointing out that the points cannot apply to the fetus because the fetus is not present when the actions that would be violations for the minor occur.

 

That seems like you're back-stepping to a different argument, that the fetus does not exist.

Or I'm not understanding you properly.

 

Only in the comparisons of the two situations. At the same point along the time line when the woman would be violating the already born minor's bodily autonomy rights (via's the minor's inability to provide informed consent) there is no ZEF to have any rights violated. It doesn't come into existence until after her actions, and in turn, especially if she was trying to prevent it's creation, it becomes the initial violator.

 

I'm sorry, I do not think I know what situation you are talking about.

In what situation are you referring to where the fetus does not exist?

Your argument does not seem to make any sense to me.

 

WHY would a woman EVER have to kill a fetus to have sex?

 

As an alternative to pregnancy.

Why wasn't that obvious to you?

Tell me what about this you are not getting and I'll explain it to you.

She has sex, even though she knows it will later put her into a situation where she could be forced to choose between pregnancy, and killing a fetus.

If, on top of that, she claims she has the right to kill a fetus to not be pregnant, isn't that equivalent to her killing a fetus to have sex?

Is that too "complicated" for you to understand, FoxHastings?

 

No, being pregnant and having sex are two different things....



Is that too "complicated" for you to understand ?


FoxHastings said: ↑
WHY would a woman EVER have to kill a fetus to have sex?


Pregnant women have sex all the time... pathetic , and telling, that you don't know that...