Missouri Bill Would Put State Gun Sales Under Same Restrictions as Abortions

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Our basic values of autonomy are not compatible with the logic required to criminalize abortion.

One could just as easily say that a basic value of autonomy is not compatible with the logic required to have taxation, the draft, government regulation, social welfare programs, etc.  Indeed, government itself is not logically compatible with autonomy. Government is all about limiting autonomy and the only significant differences between governments are who decides what autonomies are limited and what aims are hoped to be achieved by those limits.

As I've said before, the sole justification for governmental limits on abortion under a democratic government is that a society believes that at some stage of development prior to development has at least some human characteristics. Furthermore, that belief is then not merely sufficient for such limits, but compels that there be limits, which depending upon the nature of that belief could include a prohibition on abortion in some or even all circumstances.

The definition of what constitutes sufficiently human to warrant government action is a subjective definition, not an objective one, tho once such a definition has been adopted by a society, it can be objectively applied.

[Ebowed]

Our basic values of autonomy are not compatible with the logic required to criminalize abortion.

One could just as easily say that a basic value of autonomy is not compatible with the logic required to have taxation, the draft, government regulation, social welfare programs, etc.  Indeed, government itself is not logically compatible with autonomy. Government is all about limiting autonomy and the only significant differences between governments are who decides what autonomies are limited and what aims are hoped to be achieved by those limits.

One could, but their argument won't necessarily be accepted in good faith (with the exception of the draft, on which I'll concede the point).  Really, a more comparable infringement on bodily autonomy would be laws prohibiting the consumption of psychoactive substances, although even that is still not quite on the same level as forcing someone to house another human being.  It is the prerogative of libertarians to say that 'rights' are denied when behavior is regulated, or taxes owed - but in reality, this is a 'right' to do to other people as you wish.  This is not a 'right' that is intrinsic to one's bodily autonomy.  No, the right to do as you please, or indeed, refuse to pay taxes or pay towards public services is not the same thing as being told that you must keep someone alive through the sole use and occupation of your own body.  To conflate these conceptions of autonomy (or indeed, to conflate the fetus in pregnancy with citizens who are dependent on financial assistance) is to demonstrate a total inability to empathize with women.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Our basic values of autonomy are not compatible with the logic required to criminalize abortion.

One could just as easily say that a basic value of autonomy is not compatible with the logic required to have taxation, the draft, government regulation, social welfare programs, etc.  Indeed, government itself is not logically compatible with autonomy. Government is all about limiting autonomy and the only significant differences between governments are who decides what autonomies are limited and what aims are hoped to be achieved by those limits.

One could, but their argument won't necessarily be accepted in good faith (with the exception of the draft, on which I'll concede the point).  Really, a more comparable infringement on bodily autonomy would be laws prohibiting the consumption of psychoactive substances, although even that is still not quite on the same level as forcing someone to house another human being.  It is the prerogative of libertarians to say that 'rights' are denied when behavior is regulated, or taxes owed - but in reality, this is a 'right' to do to other people as you wish.  This is not a 'right' that is intrinsic to one's bodily autonomy.  No, the right to do as you please, or indeed, refuse to pay taxes or pay towards public services is not the same thing as being told that you must keep someone alive through the sole use and occupation of your own body.  To conflate these conceptions of autonomy (or indeed, to conflate the fetus in pregnancy with citizens who are dependent on financial assistance) is to demonstrate a total inability to empathize with women.

And there in the bolded text you lay clear your position.  You don't see the unborn as people, which likely is why you appear to demonstrate a total inability to empathize with the unborn. Those who favor restricting or even banning abortion do see the unborn as people.  The differing definitions of what counts as a person is precisely why the definition that society as a whole uses is subjective.

[Ebowed]

And there in the bolded text you lay clear your position.  You don't see the unborn as people, which likely is why you appear to demonstrate a total inability to empathize with the unborn. Those who favor restricting or even banning abortion do see the unborn as people.  The differing definitions of what counts as a person is precisely why the definition that society as a whole uses is subjective.

I figured you'd say that, but again, even if we grant that the fetus is a separate human entity with the implied ethical entitlements, it's still unclear how you jump from point A (the bodily autonomy that stops us from being forced to participate in blood transfusions) to point B (this autonomy disappears because you are a woman bearing child).  After all, you aren't defending the human rights of the person who relies on a blood transfusion or an organ donation.  You're simply arguing for mandatory childbirth.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

And there in the bolded text you lay clear your position.  You don't see the unborn as people, which likely is why you appear to demonstrate a total inability to empathize with the unborn. Those who favor restricting or even banning abortion do see the unborn as people.  The differing definitions of what counts as a person is precisely why the definition that society as a whole uses is subjective.

I figured you'd say that, but again, even if we grant that the fetus is a separate human entity with the implied ethical entitlements, it's still unclear how you jump from point A (the bodily autonomy that stops us from being forced to participate in blood transfusions) to point B (this autonomy disappears because you are a woman bearing child).  After all, you aren't defending the human rights of the person who relies on a blood transfusion or an organ donation.  You're simply arguing for mandatory childbirth.

Unlike your two counterexamples, there is but a single person who can provide the necessary medical support but more importantly, except in cases of rape or incest, the mother was a willing part of the reason why the medical support was needed in the first place.

[Hatman 🍁]

Love how this bill is making the gun nuts on this forum go apesh*t. Now you know how women in Missouri feel.

[DC Al Fine]

Love how this bill is making the gun nuts on this forum go apesh*t. Now you know how women in Missouri feel.

Polls don't real guys. Prolife is totally a male thing.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We have conflicting definitions of what a child is. Potential to be a child does not equate to being a child in my view. As to the value, I leave that to be determined by each individual pregnant woman to make that determination herself. Nice attempt to smear my character though, but I suppose that's always a given with you.

It's not smearing your character. It is an accurate statement of your value system. I'm sure you are very sincere or whatever in holding this value system but that is beside the point. If you believe a life is not worthy of either identity to be called as such or a right to be protected from violence, then you do not value that life in any meaningful sense aside from perhaps instrumentally.

Its potential wholly depends on the mother exclusively, so why does it deserve to be granted its own identity unless the mother grants it one?

Awful, terrible question for you: Do you mourn the same for a natural early-term miscarriage as you do the death of a two-year-old?

Don't worry, I think I know the awful, terrible answer already, you don't need to say anything. Shouldn't have brought it up really.
[/quote]

I view identity as a human being as an intrinsic characteristic, not something that can granted or taken away by the wishes of someone.

Would you mourn more for a pet who died or five random people in Africa?  Don't worry, I think I know the answer.  Not sure why that sort of question is relevant here though.
[/quote]

btw Tik, maybe in the future don't try to use the idea of someone mourning over a miscarriage as some kind of sick burn.  might not go over well with some people,  and I would hope you wouldn't want to tell someone that they are a terrible person for the depths of their reaction to such an event in their own family.

[Ebowed]

Unlike your two counterexamples, there is but a single person who can provide the necessary medical support

So, if a person who needed a blood transfusion could only get it from one other person, then it would be okay to force the other to provide it?

but more importantly, except in cases of rape or incest, the mother was a willing part of the reason why the medical support was needed in the first place.

Yes, but I recall that you don't support exceptions for rape and incest.  (My apologies if I'm misremembering.)  Either way, even if a woman did knowingly set out to get pregnant, that does not mean she has forfeited her right to bodily autonomy.  In the instance of an ectopic pregnancy, the continued development of the fetus poses a direct threat to the livelihood of the mother.  Does she abdicate her autonomy because she originally desired the pregnancy, or is there something more important at play here?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You are correct that I don't support exceptions for rape or incest, but I was addressing your autonomy argument with cases against it even if one assigns autonomy the importance you place on it rather than get into an argument over how important autonomy is.

I do support exceptions to whatever restrictions a society chooses to otherwise implement in the case of physical harm to the mother.  There's no point in continuing an ectopic pregnancy as those almost always result in the death of the fetus and have a high risk to the mother. Except for maybe a few kooks, even the most stringent of abortion opponents would agree with that, and I'm hardly one of those.  While I'm indifferent to whether restrictions are placed on abortions of fetuses that have not yet reached viability, I think abortion should be available at the embryonic stage, which is when the vast majority take place anyway.