if it is part of your body the removal is still the removal of part of your body. you can’t say it’s OK to cut off my hand because once it’s off, it’s no longer attached to me. as I said the only way you could remove bodily autonomy from the equation is if the fetus never enters the body (eg it all happens in the artificial womb).
and this entire hypothetical completely avoids my main point which is that the bodily autonomy problem comes into play not because of the pro-choice side. it’s because of the anti-choice side. the whole point of the entire conversation is the control over women, and the unborn is just a pretense.
that’s why this hypothetical will never be the problem because if the woman is not involved there wouldn’t be an anti-choice side because THEY. DON’T. CARE. ABOUT. THE FETUS. it’s never about the fetus. which is also why you see people moralize based on religion even though their religion doesn’t actually oppose abortion as a concept.
also the law you cite is stupid and doesn’t have any weight on what ought to happen. it’s also legal to marry children in some states, doesn’t make it ok.
you can’t say it’s OK to cut off my hand because once it’s off, it’s no longer attached to me.
No, but I can say that if you ask me to remove your hand, what happens to the hand after it is removed is not a matter of your bodily autonomy.
the whole point of the entire conversation is the control over women, and the unborn is just a pretense.
And I’m literally arguing that the pro-choice side isn’t being honest about it either, that claiming it’s exclusively about bodily autonomy is also just pretense. Notice that I’m suggesting a hypothetical where bodily autonomy and still having the child are detached from each other, where ending the pregnancy doesn’t mean you don’t still end up with a baby to deal with and you instead keep trying to find a way to make that still about bodily autonomy because the alternative is admitting that to an extent it isn’t because that idea is uncomfortable to grapple with.
it’s also legal to marry children in some states
Yeah, California do be like that (seriously, CA has no minimum age of marriage if you can get a judge to sign off on it). Until 2022 MA had no hard minimum and only required parental consent to marry under 18. Most other states with “child marriage” are something like hard minimum of 16 or 17 and requires sign off from parents, a judge, or both for marriage under 18 (likewise in most states the age of consent is 16).
Actually surprised no enterprising pedophile with enough money to bribe someone has tried marrying a very young child in CA (or until 2022 MA) then traveling to somewhere like NM where marriage is an exception to age of consent.
No, but I can say that if you ask me to remove your hand, what happens to the hand after it is removed is not a matter of your bodily autonomy.
says who? you can’t force people to donate organs even after they die.
trying to find a way to make that still about bodily autonomy
I’m not trying to make it about bodily autonomy. I’m saying what it is in reality, while you are arguing some abstract hypothetical situation to make an irrelevant point.
once again, if your hypothetical were a reality the whole argument would cease to exist. it would either be legal or illegal but it wouldn’t be the battleground that it is because the battle isn’t about babies.
if it is part of your body the removal is still the removal of part of your body. you can’t say it’s OK to cut off my hand because once it’s off, it’s no longer attached to me. as I said the only way you could remove bodily autonomy from the equation is if the fetus never enters the body (eg it all happens in the artificial womb).
and this entire hypothetical completely avoids my main point which is that the bodily autonomy problem comes into play not because of the pro-choice side. it’s because of the anti-choice side. the whole point of the entire conversation is the control over women, and the unborn is just a pretense.
that’s why this hypothetical will never be the problem because if the woman is not involved there wouldn’t be an anti-choice side because THEY. DON’T. CARE. ABOUT. THE FETUS. it’s never about the fetus. which is also why you see people moralize based on religion even though their religion doesn’t actually oppose abortion as a concept.
also the law you cite is stupid and doesn’t have any weight on what ought to happen. it’s also legal to marry children in some states, doesn’t make it ok.
No, but I can say that if you ask me to remove your hand, what happens to the hand after it is removed is not a matter of your bodily autonomy.
And I’m literally arguing that the pro-choice side isn’t being honest about it either, that claiming it’s exclusively about bodily autonomy is also just pretense. Notice that I’m suggesting a hypothetical where bodily autonomy and still having the child are detached from each other, where ending the pregnancy doesn’t mean you don’t still end up with a baby to deal with and you instead keep trying to find a way to make that still about bodily autonomy because the alternative is admitting that to an extent it isn’t because that idea is uncomfortable to grapple with.
Yeah, California do be like that (seriously, CA has no minimum age of marriage if you can get a judge to sign off on it). Until 2022 MA had no hard minimum and only required parental consent to marry under 18. Most other states with “child marriage” are something like hard minimum of 16 or 17 and requires sign off from parents, a judge, or both for marriage under 18 (likewise in most states the age of consent is 16).
Actually surprised no enterprising pedophile with enough money to bribe someone has tried marrying a very young child in CA (or until 2022 MA) then traveling to somewhere like NM where marriage is an exception to age of consent.
says who? you can’t force people to donate organs even after they die.
I’m not trying to make it about bodily autonomy. I’m saying what it is in reality, while you are arguing some abstract hypothetical situation to make an irrelevant point.
once again, if your hypothetical were a reality the whole argument would cease to exist. it would either be legal or illegal but it wouldn’t be the battleground that it is because the battle isn’t about babies.