Sex strike

[Shad]

LOL! You are asserting rights as universal in one instance

No I was extending a human right to another human fetuswhich most people do not do. Try again.

and then saying they are conditional in another moment? LOL!

Wrong. I pointed you to a specific context in which the right to life trumps autonomy. Try again.

 

[Shad]

Nope

Yup. That is what happens when one has sex and become pregnant.

 

[crossfire]

No I was extending a human right to another human fetus which most people do not do. Try again.

So you are extending special rights to an embryo which does not apply to persons who are dying from organ failure?

Wrong. I pointed you to a specific context in which the right to life trumps autonomy. Try again.

Right here in post #335

Nope. They still have all the privacy they want. Bodily autonomy is trumped by the right to life. All via an act the people willing or unwittingly accepted themselves

So, you are extending special rights to non-persons that even persons do not have. Persons cannot seize control or possession of another person's organs, even a dead person's organs, even if they will die without them.

 

[crossfire]

Nope. Woman give up a part of a right for 9 months via an act 99% of the time they willingly take part in themselves. I take nothing away. I point out the consequences of an action and that the solution isn't killing something on a whim

Disagree. You do not lose your rights simply due to an non-infectious medical condition that was picked up during normal, lawful living.

 

[Koldo]

Do you play in play on the HWY when you get your ice cream?

No as sex is avoidable.

As is going to the market to buy ice cream. It is not like I need ice cream to survive. On this example I went to the market just to have an enjoyable moment. Am I irresponsible for doing so ?

 

[crossfire]

Nope. They still have all the privacy they want. Bodily autonomy is trumped by the right to life. All via an act the people willing or unwittingly accepted themselves

Another point as to why the right to life does not trump bodily autonomy: bodily autonomy extends past life even into death. A person's bodily autonomy is extended to their lifeless body or corpse. Bodily autonomy trumps the right to life.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Right to Life trumps your autonomy

Except where it doesn't, such as where abortion is legal, in which case it has been deemed that the mother's autonomy trumps the fetus' right to be born. You're merely expressing your preferences. Noted.

there is no such right to kill another human for no reason or on a whim.

You keep repeating that, but you are clearly in error. There is a right in some jurisdictions, America being one for now, to get a legal abortion without having to provide a reason. Her reasons are nobody's business but her own and those she chooses to welcome into the decision making process.

You mean likes fetuses are made less than human like you have?

Fetuses are fully human, but that is not relevant to the issue of the moral status of abortion just as it is not relevant regarding killing in self-defense, human or otherwise. Also, I would attempt to save a dog trapped in a burning building just as I would a child, the child being no more important just for being human, although I confess that if they were both trapped in the same fire, I would choose to save the child first, but for practical and not moral reasons. I consider their lives of equal value, and both worth more than an embryo's or fetus'.

For me, if it's immoral to abort human beings, it's immoral to abort dogs and cats. Giving humans special status in moral issues is a religious concept that I don't hold.

Nor does it matter if you call the fetus a human being, a person, a child, or a baby. Nomenclature does not define moral status. One's reaction to the thought of an act does, and that applies only to that individual's moral code, not anybody else's.

Here;s an interesting moral dilemma for you. You work in a fertility clinic with dozens or hundreds of frozen embryos, and a fire breaks out. You can choose to save your child that you brought to work with you, or a container with 50 viable embryos, but not both. If you would choose the living child over the 50 potential living child, then you are tacitly stating that you don't consider even 50 embryo to be as valuable as a child. Neither do I.

And I also don't consider a fetus in the womb to be the equivalent of that child for the purpose.of making moral judgments.

organs are not human.

Human organs are. They're certainly not canine or ursine.

But I've already explained to you that for me and probably many others, being human is irrelevant to the moral calculus whether we are discussing an organ or an organism.

I point out the consequences of an action and that the solution isn't killing something on a whim

I doubt that many abortions are requested on a whim. I'm guessing that there is an unwanted pregnancy somewhere in there as well, one giving the potential mother more reasons than whim to want to terminate the pregnancy.

And even if the woman were requesting an abortion on a whim, that's her business, not yours or anybody else's. The law says so.

Do note your comparison is flawed as you fail to consider that the subject is about one life within the body of another while your example was of two lives with zero connections to each other.

Irrelevant to the comparison.

Any two entities, processes, or relationships can be compared and contrasted, and there will always be a list of similarities and differences. When somebody offers a metaphor or analogy, the similarities may be more relevant, making it a good metaphor, or the differences might be more relevant, making it an inapt metaphor.

For example, I think that Plato's horse and rider metaphor for the mind is apt, as it puts a more rational element in the role of trying to control the emotions, which may be quite powerful, quite irrational, and resist being reined in. For you to say that that is not a valid analogy because horses have hooves and minds don't is to point out an irrelevant distinction that doesn't diminish the value of the similarities to stand for one another.

The comparison was between forcing a woman to have a baby she doesn't want to deliver to saving the life of another, to forcing somebody to donate an organ he doesn't want to give to save the life of another. Those are the similarities that make the example relevant. The distinction you make doesn't change the moral issue. If one is right, so is the other. If one is wrong, so is the other. You offer no reason to view the two situations differently. They both involve others making decisions for competent, autonomous individuals that affect their bodies. The relevance of the comparisons (similarities) trump those of the contrasts for many people - most I'd bet.

 

[We Never Know]

Alyssa Milano's sex strike is misguided. Here's what actually might work (opinion) - CNN

Hmmmm so she's encouraging women to not have sex to negate the risk of pregnancy?

Congratulations, you just backdoored your way into sexual morality! You shouldn't be having sex with anyone, your not prepared to have a child with!

I hope all liberal women join Alyssa Milano and support her sex strike. She might make moral people out of pro-choice supporters after all!

I'm not sleeping with her so she can sex strike all she wants. It doesn't affect me or my life

 

[Shad]

Another point as to why the right to life does not trump bodily autonomy: bodily autonomy extends past life even into death. A person's bodily autonomy is extended to their lifeless body or corpse. Bodily autonomy trumps the right to life.

Nope. We will reuse any land in graveyards if it comes down to it. Happened before, will happen again.

 

[Shad]

As is going to the market to buy ice cream. It is not like I need ice cream to survive. On this example I went to the market just to have an enjoyable moment. Am I irresponsible for doing so ?

We accepted the chance you can be killed, nothing more.

 

[Shad]

Disagree. You do not lose your rights simply due to an non-infectious medical condition that was picked up during normal, lawful living.

Wrong. Look up mental institutions.

 

[crossfire]

Nope. We will reuse any land in graveyards if it comes down to it. Happened before, will happen again.

How does this involve the right to life trumping bodily autonomy?

 

[crossfire]

Wrong. Look up mental institutions.

Pregnancy is not a mental disease.

 

[Shad]

So you are extending special rights to an embryo which does not apply to persons who are dying from organ failure?

Yes. One has a right to life. The other does not have a right to organs

Right here in post #335

Which is about sex.

So, you are extending special rights to non-persons that even persons do not have.

Yes as persons is not a criteria for rights.

Persons cannot seize control or possession of another person's organs, even a dead person's organs, even if they will die without them.

A fetus is not seizing anything.

 

[Shad]

Except where it doesn't, such as where abortion is legal, in which case it has been deemed that the mother's autonomy trumps the fetus' right to be born. You're merely expressing your preferences. Noted.

Obviously.

You keep repeating that, but you are clearly in error.

Wrong

There is a right in some jurisdictions, America being one for now, to get a legal abortion without having to provide a reason.

That isn't a right. That is killing, nothing more.

Her reasons are nobody's business but her own and those she chooses to welcome into the decision making process.

Irrelevant.

Fetuses are fully human, but that is not relevant to the issue of the moral status of abortion just as it is not relevant regarding killing in self-defense, human or otherwise.

Actually it is as the latter are morally acceptable while the former isn't nearly so much.

Also, I would attempt to save a dog trapped in a burning building just as I would a child, the child being no more important just for being human, although I confess that if they were both trapped in the same fire, I would choose to save the child first, but for practical and not moral reasons. I consider their lives of equal value, and both worth more than an embryo's or fetus'.

You are welcome to treating dogs like humans if you want. Doesn't say much about you if you do not value human life above a dogs.

For me, if it's immoral to abort human beings, it's immoral to abort dogs and cats. Giving humans special status in moral issues is a religious concept that I don't hold.

We are special as we are higher life-forms capable of thoughts and acts normal animals can not. This is not religious, this is science.

Nor does it matter if you call the fetus a human being, a person, a child, or a baby. Nomenclature does not define moral status. One's reaction to the thought of an act does, and that applies only to that individual's moral code, not anybody else's.

Ergo clump of cells

Here;s an interesting moral dilemma for you. You work in a fertility clinic with dozens or hundreds of frozen embryos, and a fire breaks out. You can choose to save your child that you brought to work with you, or a container with 50 viable embryos, but not both. If you would choose the living child over the 50 potential living child, then you are tacitly stating that you don't consider even 50 embryo to be as valuable as a child. Neither do I.

I would save my child as it is my child. I am responsible for my child being there. I value my family over strangers. No dilemma.

And I also don't consider a fetus in the womb to be the equivalent of that child for the purpose.of making moral judgments.

K

Human organs are. They're certainly not canine or ursine.

No as one is a species while organs are not. You conflated my use of human.

But I've already explained to you that for me and probably many others, being human is irrelevant to the moral calculus whether we are discussing an organ or an organism.

So? All you demonstrated is your have a warped worldview in which humans are not valued more than non-humans.

I doubt that many abortions are requested on a whim.

Most are at least according a FL stat I read.

I'm guessing that there is an unwanted pregnancy somewhere in there as well, one giving the potential mother more reasons than whim to want to terminate the pregnancy.

Which is a whim as the method of avoiding it is fool-proof in almost all cases. Avoid sex.

And even if the woman were requesting an abortion on a whim, that's her business, not yours or anybody else's. The law says so.

So? Just because something is a law does not make it right.

Irrelevant to the comparison.

No it made the comparison pure nonsense as you can't figure out fundamental differences. Not my problem your comparisons are horrible

Any two entities, processes, or relationships can be compared and contrasted, and there will always be a list of similarities and differences. When somebody offers a metaphor or analogy, the similarities may be more relevant, making it a good metaphor, or the differences might be more relevant, making it an inapt metaphor.

A good comparison is of similar objects not disconnected ones. Try again.

For example, I think that Plato's horse and rider metaphor for the mind is apt, as it puts a more rational element in the role of trying to control the emotions, which may be quite powerful, quite irrational, and resist being reined in. For you to say that that is not a valid analogy because horses have hooves and minds don't is to point out an irrelevant distinction that doesn't diminish the value of the similarities to stand for one another.

Unrelated babble as the key error you made in your comparison is the fetus does not have a choice while your comparison did. Ergo your comparison is flawed and nonsense. Try again .

The comparison was between forcing a woman to have a baby she doesn't want to deliver to saving the life of another, to forcing somebody to donate an organ he doesn't want to give to save the life of another. Those are the similarities that make the example relevant. The distinction you make doesn't change the moral issue. If one is right, so is the other. If one is wrong, so is the other. You offer no reason to view the two situations differently. They both involve others making decisions for competent, autonomous individuals that affect their bodies. The relevance of the comparisons (similarities) trump those of the contrasts for many people - most I'd bet.

Irrelevant ad populum.

Nope as the baby was created by the choice of the mother to begin with. It is protecting the life of that which can not defend itself from a selfish parent that can not think 5 minutes into the future. Seizing organs is not the same as the subject need the organs is not the creation via a process the donor willing took part in. She is facing the consequence of her actions while the donor comparison is not. Try again

I offered a reason. You just do not accept it thus think it does not exist. Try again.

 

[Shad]

Pregnancy is not a mental disease.

So? You made a generalized statement about rights and conditions. A parent can be in an institution due to pregnancy and a mental condition as she is a risk to herself and child. There are also negligence laws. Competency laws.

 

[Shad]

How does this involve the right to life trumping bodily autonomy?

As you talked about death. I pointed out we humans have little issues ignoring any rights of the dead. After all how many mummies are still in their tombs? Right to life does not even need to be invoked to nullify bodily autonomy of corpses.

 

[crossfire]

Yes. One has a right to life. The other does not have a right to or

Rephrase please. Does not make sense.

Which is about sex.

There is absolutely nothing about sex in post #335 or in the post you quoted in post #335. Try again.

Yes as persons is not a criteria for rights.

What are the criteria for rights, then?

A fetus is not seizing anything.

An embryo or fetus parasitically seizes the host's resourses via the placenta (which develops from the blastocyte, not from the host) forcing the host to use the host's organs to process both food and waste, as well as taking up space within the host's body.

 

[crossfire]

As you talked about death. I pointed out we humans have little issues ignoring any rights of the dead. After all how many mummies are still in their tombs? Right to life does not even need to be invoked to nullify bodily autonomy of corpses.

The post was about bodily autonomy trumping the right to life. Bodily autonomy extends past life into death. One being's right to life in the form of a need for a replacement organ does not trump a another's right to bodily autonomy to harvest their organs when they have not specified that they are not an organ donor when living.

You need to refute the issue of bodily autonomy trumping the right to life, which you have not done.

 

[Shad]

Rephrase please. Does not make sense.

Sorry. It is "organs"

There is absolutely nothing about sex in post #335 or in the post you quoted in post #335. Try again.

The word does not need to be there. The context is about abortion. Reread it and look at the comment it was direct at.

What are the criteria for rights, then?

Being a human. That's what makes it Human rights not Person Rights or Sentient Rights or Awareness Rights. Passing through the birth canal does not make something a human

An embryo or fetus parasitically seizes the host's resourses via the placenta (which develops from the blastocyte, not from the host) forcing the host to use the host's organs to process both food and waste, as well as taking up space within the host's body.

Nope. The mothers reproduction system functions as normal otherwise any fetus would be targeted by the mother's immune system. The fetus isn't a parasite. Your dehumanization has been noted and expected.