Oh, so then you should be able to direct me to a webpage with this precise definition. This will at least support your claim.
I'm not making any claims. You are. Just admit that there is no objective definition for 'bodily autonomy.'
You're familiar with the infamous Dred Scott case, aren't you? They used that same argument to perpetrate slavery. Conveniently classify one party as not a "real person", not a citizen.
It depends very much what you choose to define as "healthcare". Would you consider an elective facelift to be healthcare? How about a boob job? How about, just as a hypothetical, if the woman wanted to install a circular ring with a wire in her cervix so that when she gave birth it would slice the baby into two? Would you consider that "healthcare"?
Well, to be fair, chris155au, it is rather obvious that absolute bodily autonomy would include abortion, but the main issue is that abortion violates the bodily rights of the unborn. (small children do not have autonomy but they do have bodily rights) The pro-life position is that a pregnant woman does not (or should not) have absolute bodily autonomy. In fact, it could be said neither should a woman who is planning to abort in the event she gets pregnant. This is also true for conjoined twins (which has been discussed in other threads). She can still mostly have bodily autonomy without being able to get an elective abortion.
I see big similarities with your argument. You seek to exclude them from rights with semantics and a simple definition.
It's called a thought experiment, or a counter example. If you make a general claim, and I can provide one single example where your claim does not hold, even if hypothetical imagined and unrealistic, then it is probable that your claim does not actually logically hold, or at least isn't an absolute truth.
I wasn't aware abortion was actually a "constitutional right". We've of course had discussions about that in other past threads.
Having some doctor, usually a man, digging around inside of a woman, is hardly an expression of that woman's bodily autonomy!
Presuming that you have actually read the Ninth Amendment, you have not demonstrated sophisticated comprehension skills regarding the English language.
You think about it. You know how logic works, right? My hypotheticals, as crazy, fantastical or unrealistic as they may be, demonstrate that the concepts you hold about ethics are incorrect. Although one could argue they are "an argument from extremes", nevertheless it does prove many of the things pro-choicers claim (as part of their arguments) are not absolute truths, since they can't hold up in all situations. It seems your ilk don't want to be intellectually honest. That might require some honest thinking and mental effort.
You're the one coming up with absolutely ridiculous nonsense. There is NO reason for considering what even you admit are crazy, fantastical and unrealistic hypotheticals. Think before you post.
That is not true. Imagined scenarios can be used to highlight and make obvious certain concepts and principles, to see how more mundane situations in reality work. You're basically saying "I refuse to think about your arguments".
