I think Twitter is nearly useless for communicating ideas effectively. So, I will respond here to saved time and effort.

Lisa:

It’s not and I won’t. Ever.

ReproductiveSlavery is unethical. Full stop.

TheSire:

I think it’s great. What’s your argument?

Lisa:

Reality

TheSire:

Let me retort: You’re wrong because of reality. If you find that silly then that’s the logic of your entire position.

Lisa:

I dont. Yes, reality. The stuff that’s not debatable. That Women are People w full Rights, both Human and Civil. And IllegalAborion violates their 1st, 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 13th, 14th and 19th amendment protections.

TheSire:

I don’t think women have a right to murder their children. Even if the constitution said they did. It was once allowed under the government to treat African Americans as lesser than human creatures. This was obviously incorrect. So, these are insufficient appeals.

—————————————————————————————————————————————-

Kate:

Where a human has needs that can only be filled by bodily contact ≠ a person inherently having a duty to fulfill that need

A sense of duty comes from within.
I hold that persons voluntarily taking on such duties is wonderful & make the world go round. To impose it is unethical.

Who ascertains when, & IF, starts a persons hands-on Duty-of-Care towards another human?
There is not an answer more ethical than that person does. Any other answer means diff ppl/govt are ascertaining that person’s body ‘belongs’ to someone else. Enforcement unethical.

Who thinks it ethical to enforce persons to carry out a duty without their consent, in which standard of care requires bodily contact? That is authoritarian thinking. Heck, society has held coerced labour where bodily contact is NOT expected is unethical.

TheSire:

Most people, I think that really doesn’t matter and I wouldn’t pretend to be neutral. Take the example of a woman who gives birth. We don’t think she can place her baby on a sidewalk and leave forever.

So. It seems to me that in that case, we require such activity.

Clearly, Christian God made us, and therefore we are obligated to our children. If not, then we aren’t obligated to anything. So, I grant your view is barbaric. You can’t account why we should care about anyone at any age.

Thirdly, we impose ethical norms all the time. They are called laws and they are maintained by force. So, you’re really saying we shouldn’t have laws

I think children do have special claims over their parents. That’s why we are obligated to care for our children. To say that they don’t means they are property and can be raped, starved, etc. Just really sickening perspective on children

Kate:

Was this a cryptic pregnancy? Most person who knowingly & willingly gestate to/past viability intend to either raise their infant, or pass it on to someone who will.
That is quite different from unreasonable & untimely quashing their rights to BI/BA/MA continuously for months.

I already account for it. I hold
-voluntary care-giving involving bodily contact is wonderful & makes the world go round
-enforcing involuntary ‘care-giving’ involving bodily contact is awful & harming & unethical, and it violates persons’ basic bodily rights

Nope. I am talking about law-abiding consent-capable persons having a right to
-seek medical care to timely end conditions harming them
-withhold or end bodily contact
It is unethical to ban those basic rights. The former most don’t even hold ethical to quash for law-breakers.

TheSire:

“Was this a cryptic pregnancy? Most person who knowingly & willingly gestate to/past viability intend to either raise their infant, or pass it on to someone who will.”

I don’t think it matters. Humans can change their minds or it might be a cryptic pregnancy. I think the idea would remain immoral regardless that we shouldn’t leave babies on the streets to die.

“-voluntary care-giving involving bodily contact is wonderful & makes the world go round
-enforcing involuntary ‘care-giving’ involving bodily contact is awful & harming & unethical, and it violates persons’ basic bodily rights”

The first isn’t really relevant and the second is obviously not to be taken for granted. Women have obligations to children and should give their children up for adoption if they are not willing or able to burden themselves with parenting.

“Nope. I am talking about law-abiding consent-capable persons having a right to
-seek medical care to timely end conditions harming them
-withhold or end bodily contact”

I would just deny that the second is being used equivocally. Most think that you are not obligated to be in inforced contact with another person external to your body that you arent creating. But birth is a rather unique and different instance where you usurp some of your freedoms for your children’s well-being. It is exactly why you can’t voluntarily leave your children to die in the woods.

“You misconstrue.
No person has a duty involving bodily contact til after they’ve affirmatively accept one. Not possible in unplanned conception.
If a person declines such a duty it is much more ethical & efficient to find different individual to do so, than to force the former.”

I disagree, I don’t think that your agreement to a principle is a necessary condition for whether you are obligated to something. Rather, that position means that nobody is actually obligated not to murder you until they agree to the rulebook. That means at any time one can just by choice agree to be cannibals and that would be the correct thing to do.

The idea that “If a person declines such a duty it is much more ethical & efficient to find a different individual to do so” is utterly silly. If I decline to continue with my obligation to pay my car note, then it is easier to find someone else to pay it. You could justify doing anything with these ideas. The truth is that some obligations aren’t voluntary and they are imposed on us by God.

Kate:

How do u turn IF & WHEN persons only reasonable & timely way to withhold/end bodily contact is lethal, they are justified to proceed under their BA rights …into “nobody is actually obligated not to murder you til they agree to the rulebook”? Bodily rights ≠ car loans. *ptui*

Self-defense & murder* are ethically mutually exclusive. Since abortion is justified defense of one’s life & limb, health & bodily autonomy, it is not murder*. *or unjustified / unethical killing, if one would prefer to put aside that murder is defined by law

TheSire:

“Bodily rights ≠ car loans.”

Nobody has argued bodily rights are identical to a car loan. The relevant similarity is that in each case you have an obligation. The point you had made was that obligations must be voluntary and I rejected that because it’s silly.

“Self-defense & murder* are ethically mutually exclusive. Since abortion is justified defense of one’s life & limb, health & bodily autonomy, it is not murder*. ”

Abortion isn’t self-defense because a baby doesn’t (in every case) put the mother’s life at risk nor is an agent making some threat to take a woman’s life or to assault her. In fact, women were actually made for these kinds of things. To even suppose it was, then I would say this would be a case where you don’t have the right to defend yourself.

I don’t think we agree on what bodily autonomy is and I think children have special claims over their parents. Women are made to be mothers and once they have a child that child has claims over a parent.

Kate:

‘I Rejected that obligations [involving bodily contact remember?] must be voluntary as that is silly’. Really? What authority ought to decide if our duties involving bodily contact with different humans is voluntary or not? You are going thru most of the anti-abortion fallacies.

TheSire:

“‘I Rejected that obligations [involving bodily contact remember?] must be voluntary as that is silly’. Really?”

Who’s special pleading? You are limiting this magical unargued for voluntarism criterion for this special right. Why think this wouldn’t be true of other obligations?

“What authority ought to decide if our duties involving bodily contact with different humans is voluntary or not?”

That is more a question for your position. I hold to divinely given rights which include the protections and special privileges of children to their parents. Your position is that there are these things called rights and they have no rhyme or reason. Secondly, this “right” of voluntary bodily contact is far from absolute with no exceptions. Namely, you can’t walk away from a child in circumstances in which your child is at risk of harm. Thus you are forced to use your body to give up your child without indirectly murdering them. Or say during a surgery you lose control of your activities, your voluntary bodily use ceases at another voluntarily bodily use. Or the millions of other circumstances where this right doesn’t apply.

Kate:

 

I am discussing rights of law-abiding consent-capable persons. If unconscious (asleep, surgery) one isn’t curr consent-capable.
If one has substantively affirmatively accepted duties involving bodily contact, there are standards of care involved. I am discussing before that.

 

TheSire:

 

“I am discussing rights of law-abiding consent-capable persons. If unconscious (asleep, surgery) one isn’t curr consent-capable.”

That’s fine.  I gave cases where we see a person may have impaired cognitive abilities or not. Certainly, these things are in gradation.  Say a woman is dying of something and is unable to give consent (also with no known family or whatever person with responsibilitiesfor that person) .  These cases usually mean that consent isn’t a necessary condition for touching someone. It may be sufficient but not necessary. This probably leaves wiggle room not needing consent for an infant.

Secondly,  I denied the necessity of it by showing cases where you are obligated to use your bodies in certain ways.  We see that your consent-capable body isn’t allowed to assault other bodies of the same nature.  So,  laws protect other people’s properties and such is more relevant to issues with children

Thirdly, it is weird to state that it is slavery given that no rape has occurred. Do slaves often create and capture their slave masters to say they have the right to kill them because they are trespassing?