This doesn’t address the point: bodily autonomy is not violated by that body’s own offspring. How exactly is she being forced to do anything? The contentious issue is the force applied to her in an abortion to terminate a new life. Pro-lifers are actually arguing against the use of force, not pro-choicers.
So if your child went into a coma, and the only way to sustain them was to have your body attached to theirs 24/7, it would be acceptable to force you into being a life support system regardless of whether or not you consented?
The analogy doesn’t work to demonstrate a violated right of bodily autonomy because it would in fact require compulsive force against my person, which is not the case in conception and pregnancy because it does not involve any use of force applied to the woman. The analogy serves my point, however: It also would not be acceptable to forcefully terminate the child’s life.
How would making a woman remain pregnant against her will not involve force and compulsion against her person?
Making her remain pregnant? Explain.
Not allowing her to legally seek and receive an abortion. It’s pretty self-explanatory.
That’s exactly what I’m challenging: the rhetoric is a vague abstraction that makes it seem like bodily autonomy is violated, but it is not. No one is “making her remain pregnant.” The argument is to prevent her from forcefully terminating the pregnancy. There is no forceful compulsion against her person to make her do anything.
Not allowing her to terminate a pregnancy = forcing her to remain pregnant. Threat of legal punishment for receiving an abortion definitely counts as compulsion to remain pregnant.
This doesn’t violate her right to bodily autonomy though. No one is applying any force to her body against her will.
Legal force is still force.
Only if consent to sex = consent to pregnancy, which it does not.
I’ve heard that same excuse used to defend rape and non-consensual insemination (i.e. “stealthing”). Not buying it.
According to whom?
Not at the moment, but if abortion were to be outlawed in your hypothetical theocratic utopia, how would you handle cases where women were caught seeking abortions? If your answer is to detain them until they deliver, how does that not count as force against their persons?
This doesn’t make any sense to me. Rape is an obvious violation of liberty and bodily autonomy.
That’s what I’m arguing: It’s not reasonable to accept that a natural process of a person’s body violates their bodily autonomy, especially if it’s a healthy process. In this case, a healthy pregnancy. If the pregnancy is complicated and seriously risks the mother’s life, there might be room to argue otherwise.
First of all, I don’t think we should pretend we can ever attain a utopia in this fallen world, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t pursue ideals. I think you get my point though. There might be something similar to an attempted murder charge, if the embryo were considered a legal person. Detention would not be for the purpose of forcing her to remain pregnant, but because of the attempted crime.
I already have. You’re making this very tedious.
Bodily autonomy, eh?Neithan:
How would making a woman remain pregnant against her will not involve force and compulsion against her person?
Legal argument can be extremely tedious, but it’s worth questioning assumptions, especially when they are based on rhetorical abstractions.
Like the ones you’ve been presenting this entire conversation, i.e. the unsubstantiated assertion that your bodily autonomy can’t be violated by your offspring?