Right to Contraception Under Attack

[Atahualpa]

Anyway, nobody answered my question, and there are far dumber ones out there: tiger-fetus medicine, OK or not?

To abort or not to abort that is the question!

Okay, what do you want to hear? I think Tigers should be protected because its a very rare animal already. So if this medicine cannot be produced syntethically I'd say: NOT.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Note the topic of the thread -- it relates to abortion and contraceptives and whether or not women should have the right to decide for themselves on these personal issues.

In this topic context, my statement still does not imply an absolute all or nothing position. Don't you read people's posts in the context of the thread's topic??

So basically you think the 'right' of autonomy of a woman's body ONLY extends to contraception and abortion? Sorry, but autonomy of a body extends well past that.

[MrFun]

Of course it does -- but here we're talking about contraception and abortion.

So just because there are other issues tied to right to autonomy over one's body and it complicates this issue, that means we can justify denying women this right??

[Elok]

Originally posted by Atahualpa
To abort or not to abort that is the question!

Okay, what do you want to hear? I think Tigers should be protected because its a very rare animal already. So if this medicine cannot be produced syntethically I'd say: NOT.

But it's NOT a tiger. Some day, it might eventually BECOME a tiger, but it's just a lump of cells right now. Who are you to deny a thriving third-world industry its livelihood because of your personal beliefs?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Again, contraception is how prolifers define personhood. To argue against this requires one to argue that the prolifers are wrong on this point, notwithstanding their individual views on contraception.

Some of us have tried to argue with prolifers on this very point, but they have a tendency to abandon the field when it becomes apparent that their position on the matter makes no sense.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Of course it does -- but here we're talking about contraception and abortion.

So just because there are other issues tied to right to autonomy over one's body and it complicates this issue, that means we can justify denying women this right??

It means talking about 'autonomy over one's own body' and having 'a right to do so' is a fallacy. Because you don't really believe those words... only for a very limited group, which isn't 'autonomy over your own body' and isn't a 'right'.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Elok
Okay, Gibsie, we admit it: all pro-lifers are secretly child molesters trying to assure a steady stream of underaged tail for posterity. Your keen reasoning skills triumph again.

Oh well. Little fun question: should it be legal to shoot a pregnant tiger with a tranq dart, extract the fetus, and grind it up into medicine for elderly chinese people? It's not like you're killing an endangered animal or anything; it's a "potential tiger."

How you so spectacularly misread what I was saying is beyond me. I was referring to ONE case of ONE nutjob who also happened to be a paedophile, and commented on that particular person's particular hatred for women and children. Unless you also hate abortion to the extent that you would also put a bounty on the head of abortion doctors, then there is no reason for you to assume that I'm calling everyone who is anti-abortion a child-molester. Hell, I didn't even call this guy a child-molester! Your keen reasoning skills fail again and again and again! Sava's post made more sense than yours, you know that?

Should it be legal to grind up a tiger foetus as long as the parent is not killed? It should have the same legal status as removing any additional organs, e.g. one of their kidneys, for the same purpose.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Of course it does -- but here we're talking about contraception and abortion.

So just because there are other issues tied to right to autonomy over one's body and it complicates this issue, that means we can justify denying women this right??

It means talking about 'autonomy over one's own body' and having 'a right to do so' is a fallacy. Because you don't really believe those words... only for a very limited group, which isn't 'autonomy over your own body' and isn't a 'right'.

So because there are some cases where it would obviously be wrong to carry out a bad decision on the premise that you have autonomy over your own body, then there is no right to having this autonomy?

So because it would be wrong to shout fire in the theater, does this mean that people do not have the right to free speech??

[loinburger]

The case of shouting "fire" in a theater is one in which two rights conflict -- free speech and safety. However, there is no conflict in rights in the case of our limiting people's autonomy over their bodies -- there is no "right to not be allowed to sell one of your kidneys." This means that either you're calling for arbitrary restriction in somebody else's "right to autonomy," or else that there is no "right to autonomy."

Regardless, even if there were a "right to autonomy," you would then have to make the case that this trumps the "right to life" of a fetus/embryo/zygote/etc., rather than simply spouting rhetoric about how all pro-lifers hate women and/or liberty, or whatever have you.

[Seeker]

LOL an embryo or zygote doesn't have a 'right' to anything.

Only actual sentience entails human rights. Otherwise the notion of human rights is nonsensical.

On the 'scheming oppressors' line:

Do you really think that pro-choicers would ever consider supporting something that might even be considered a massacre of millions of human beings? We're not 'evil'. It's just that the notion of 'zygotes's rights' as was mentioned above is so patently ridiculous that we suspect there must be some ulterior motive.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by loinburger
The case of shouting "fire" in a theater is one in which two rights conflict -- free speech and safety. However, there is no conflict in rights in the case of our limiting people's autonomy over their bodies -- there is no "right to not be allowed to sell one of your kidneys." This means that either you're calling for arbitrary restriction in somebody else's "right to autonomy," or else that there is no "right to autonomy."

Regardless, even if there were a "right to autonomy," you would then have to make the case that this trumps the "right to life" of a fetus/embryo/zygote/etc., rather than simply spouting rhetoric about how all pro-lifers hate women and/or liberty, or whatever have you.

Since a fetus before later stages of development is not a sentient being, I would say that if the right to autonomy over one's body does legally exist, then this right takes precedence over the non-sentient fetus.


But I guess I was wrong that we have a right to our own bodies, anyway.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Seeker
Only actual sentience entails human rights. Otherwise the notion of human rights is nonsensical.

I agree. However, most pro-lifers disagree (as to why they disagree, well, you'll have to ask them -- I've never gotten a straight answer), and so it's just as schmucky to equate a pro-life stance to a "pro-misogyny" stance as it is to equate a pro-choice stance to a "pro-murder" stance.

[Elok]

I don't think pro-choicers deliberately murder, I just think they deliberately avoid certain questions and concerns so they can do what's convenient for them without any qualms. The motive doesn't seem to be to harm, but to avoid having to deal with unpleasant experiences no matter what it takes. Sorta like people in the Old South once owned slaves just to get cheap labor, not to abuse black people for fun or anything.

And I might as well reiterate that "sentience as human rights" borders on eugenics. We value people because they're human, not because of their thinking ability. Suggesting that someone's right to live is dependent on his/her abilities is sick if you ask me.

Moreover, you are talking about killing a creature that is genetically identical to one you wouldn't kill, that is, the infant form of the fetus. Nobody has ever explained to me how this is any different from stomping on caterpillars and claiming you've never hurt a butterfly.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Elok
And I might as well reiterate that "sentience as human rights" borders on eugenics.

It does not resemble eugenics in any way shape or form. You're coming awfully close to invoking Godwin's Law.

Moreover, you are talking about killing a creature that is genetically identical to one you wouldn't kill, that is, the infant form of the fetus.

That's because DNA is not sacred. Monkey DNA is over 95% identical to human DNA, yet nobody in their right mind would claim that monkeys have a 95% right to life.

Regardless, this might better be taken up in the thread that you and Ben stopped posting in.

[Seeker]

"We value people because they're human"

Exactly...and the only logical way to define 'humanity' is through sentience, not lumps of cells.