Define that, because I suspect you just mean 'catholic/religious dogma'.
Texas v abortion
- Thread starter Trunkage
- Start date
"It's my house, you can't live here anymore"
perfectly fine, according to a conservative-- even in cases where "my house" isn't even lived in by the "owner"
"it's my body, you can't live here anymore"
not a reasonable conception of rights, apparently
perfectly fine, according to a conservative-- even in cases where "my house" isn't even lived in by the "owner"
"it's my body, you can't live here anymore"
not a reasonable conception of rights, apparently
A right is something you're entitled to. Are you entitled to kill your offspring? Are you entitled to medically unnecessary procedures? What human right do you imagine abortion falls under?
The right to bodily autonomy. Same reason we can't strap a prisoner down and take a chunk of their liver
You made an assumption. You just only ever applied your logic to the woman. You never bothered to apply it to anyone else.
THAT'S why I was so surprised you just kept going. Why I kept asking. All I did was apply you logic to someone else.
If you are going to go with the 'shit happens, deal with it' approach, think about everyone involved. Not just the one you clearly think is the only one who deserve consequences.
You've not expressed yet an understanding of the logic. You're still going on about "deserving", and that's never what I was on about.
That's not a right.
"Security of person" is typically the concept used for that sort of thing. People have attempted to stretch the concept over to "bodily autonomy" for all and only this debate, as "security of person" does not imply any right to have things removed from your body. Bodily autonomy doesn't fit in a reasonable conception of rights because the idea of bodily autonomy is that you get to make the decisions over your own body, and you just don't. Literally no matter what anyone does for or against you, you will never have the power to just make decisions for your body. You can't go "I've decided to never have cancer". It doesn't work that way. A society can attempt to protect your security of person. It cannot give you the power of bodily self-determination. Declaring something magical and imaginary a right is silly.
But I'm permitted to go to a doctor and have the cancer removed without protesters outside telling me I'm a murderer and a whore.
If there is 'no deserving', then whatever happens to the fetus just happens to the fetus. If there is an abortion, it's just what happens and it needs to live with that
You seem to be suggesting that if something isn't dictated by your sense of justice, then we can't make laws about it. Like, the woman may or may not deserve to be pregnant. That doesn't make abortion better or worse. At the same time, nobody really deserves to live. Nobody earned their place into existence. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying to keep people alive. And some people deserve to die. That doesn't mean we should be killing them. If you base your laws on only what people deserve, you'd be living in an exceptionally more violent world.
This is a very strange argument.
On the same basis we don't have any right to life either, because we can die by accident or someone else's design. Nor do we have a right to property, because someone can steal it or it can be destroyed by accidents. In fact, we have no rights at all, because lots of stuff can happen to us that we don't want. And, ironically, that lack of rights would also extend to fetuses, so they merit no protection at all.
Is that the argument you really want to make?
No, because none of those things follow the same pattern. You have life. You have property. You have security of person. If nobody is violating your rights, these are things that you have by default. You don't have people performing procedures on you by default.
You don't kick balls by default either, but that's no argument to ban football.
Why are you making stuff up?
People getting what they deserve can very much lead less violence. Eg. George Floyd deserved to be incarcerated safely. He was not, through extreme violence. The police hid evidence and lied to cover up an investigation that the law says Floyd deserve. Not getting what is deserved lead to more violence
Ignoring human rights that we've decided people deserve lead to slavery. Ignoring what workers deserve has lead to striktober. Ignoring native rights lead to the trail of tears.
I can see a bunch of ways 'deserves' leads to more violence. But I can see a bunch of ways 'deserve' leads to less violence. It's almost like 'deserve' isn't the actual problem
You don't have security of person if another person can inhabit your body without your consent.