Can we agree that women are entitled to bodily autonomy?

[msrisotto]

We are allowed to impose boundaries on who we have sex with, who we get naked in front of, who we spend time with with no justification required. No one is entitled to anything from me. Women's rights are human rights.

That's nice.

The legal definition may be the most workable currently, but laws change all the time, and should in recognition of what we learn

Laws don't change all the time. The fundamental laws change pretty much not at all, and there really isn't much we could learn that would change the very widespread and ancient legal standing of birth as the beginning of legal personhood.

I will have to reread Singer as it was a long time ago.

www.nonhumanrights.org The non human rights project seeks to extend personhood to certain animals. One of their arguments uses the fact that as Pencils says, corporations can be classed as persons.

Pencils, your view that a person has to be human is probably the majority view. However, the idea that humans are in some way distinct from the rest of nature is quite a religious one, that we are devinely imbued with some special nature, rather than just another species. We should consider the qualities we ascribe to personhood, because it may nt be just humans who have these qualities. We should also consider the possibility that AI may reach a point where a digital brain, equal to a human's may exist. Or, what about the more sci-fi question of making contact with an alien species who have a comparable level of intelligence, society etc? If that would make our view of personhood expand we may look back on our current ideas as pretty barbaric.

If we consider artificial wombs may become a reality, what rights would a foetus not in a woman's body have? Could a parent decide to end a life not inside their body? If the reason a foetus doesn't have rights is that that would negatively impact the woman carrying be foetus, then what is the benchmark for a foetus not dependent on another human? If there would be a difference then is the quality we give to personhood lying not within the creature itself, but in its relationship to another? What would this mean?

I'm not arguing that humans are somehow distinct from the rest of nature or that we are divinely imbued with some special nature. Of course we are just another species. Religion could not be further from my mind. I am saying that as a member of the species 'human' I recognise members of my own species as people but not members of other species except the cats. I am an unashamed 'speciesist' if you like.

I'm very happy with the qualities I consider to be essential to personhood, the first of which is to be human. No non-human has that quality, obviously.

I don't base my definition of personhood on levels of intelligence. I am happy to recognise the personhood of some really quite stupid people as well as people who are unable, because of disability, to develop their intellect and also people too young to have yet done so.

There may well be other intelligent species out there in the universe which may or may not have consideration for the interests of human beings. They might want to anihilate the lot of us or breed us for food. We might reach a point where AI can reason as well as us. Or better. Or differently in unpredictable and uncontrollable ways that are detrimental to basic human interests. This isn't what makes personhood. We might decide to ascribe those entities rights based on their ability to reason but that's for us to decide as a species, and in so doing it is not necessary to ascribe personhood.

I fully expect to be called a bigot for this view at some point over the next couple of decades but I don't give a shit.

If we consider artificial wombs may become a reality, what rights would a foetus not in a woman's body have? Could a parent decide to end a life not inside their body? If the reason a foetus doesn't have rights is that that would negatively impact the woman carrying be foetus, then what is the benchmark for a foetus not dependent on another human? If there would be a difference then is the quality we give to personhood lying not within the creature itself, but in its relationship to another? What would this mean?

Where did the foetus come from? How was it extracted? Was it produced in a dish from egg and sperm? Men can just jizz in a tube but how did they get the egg? What's involved in that process and how does it affect the woman? If it wasn't produced in a dish, what did the woman want to do about her pregnancy while the foetus was still in her body? What if she didn't want to produce another human being whatever space age tech was used? What if that has a massive negative impact for her?

What would this mean?

It would mean that for some people sci fi and navel gazing philosophy are far more fascinating than the mundane shit that is fighting for the basic rights of women to have control over their own bodies.

Women are people.

Women are people who can be pro choice, can campaign, donate, and support friends through abortion, and at the same time can consider philosophical questions.

Mary,

You keep saying that personhood begins at birth and, because it is the law, it is an immutable unchallengeable fact.

Well, legally, you cannot choose to abort a foetus over 24 weeks, so is the current law the last word on this too?

Women are people who can be pro choice, can campaign, donate, and support friends through abortion, and at the same time can consider philosophical questions

I am pro-choice, I sign campaigns and petitions and donate and have supported a friend through an abortion of twins. Having said that I find some of the language and tone on this thread and others when abortion is discussed very troubling. Not the least of which being that it rarely sounds like anything which would change the mind of an anti, indeed more likely to harden anti- views.

I'll expand on this later but not in a place where I can post at length.

ou keep saying that personhood begins at birth and, because it is the law, it is an immutable unchallengeable fact

No I didn't, I said it is the law, and has been for a very very very long time. It's been pretty much a constant of human society, twas ever thus. Is it possible for this to change? sure. Is it likely? Not in the slightest.

Well, legally, you cannot choose to abort a foetus over 24 weeks, so is the current law the last word on this too?

Actually you can, under some circumstances, but abortion laws are very new in the scheme of things and vary even within the UK never mind everywhere else, so it's not even slightly comparable.

Yes as long as it's not hurting others (like the pregnant women example) everybody should be entitled to bodily autonomy imo.

Mary,

IMO it is highly comparable. The direction of travel in the law is towards a lower abortion limit. This has recently been debated in parliament.

3D scanning has demonstrated the range of movement and emotional responses of the unborn baby at near term. Laws change in relation to new discovery.

Most people cannot see the (moral or ethical) difference between killing a baby the day before due date or the day after it (unless its life is directly endangering the life of the mother).

There is also the issue of who is going to carry out late term abortion on demand. In Canada it is legal but they cannot find doctors willing to perform the procedures.

This is not a theoretical debate and you cannot remove the fact of the baby having to be somehow killed (normally an injection of potassium chloride into the heart) and then the mother having to give birth or the baby internally dissected and suctioned out. This affects both the mother and the physicians.

As I have repeatedly stated no one has bodily autonomy where third party help is needed. I cannot demand to have a kidney removed (even privately). Does that mean that I lack bodily autonomy?

It IS largely a theoretical debate. All these stupid arguments like "is it ok then the kill it when it;s half out at 40 weeks" as if that or anything like it actually happens! It's smoke and mirrors, distraction away from the real issues.

And yes laws can change based on new evidence. But what new evidence do you think is possible to discover that would change the view that a personhood begins at birth? Even countries where a foetus has "rights to life" don't count foetuses as human persons. They never have done. That is not going to change.

I'm so tired of these ridiculous nonsensical philosophical arguments around late term abortions designed to make people think to extremes that don't even happen.

This reminds me a bit of that Kant (?) dilemma with the lying and the knife wielding maniac.

Taking a principle to the point where a vanishingly small number of people would actually behave like that in real life.

The murder at the Inn?^

The one where your friend comes to your door and says help me, a maniac is after me, they come in and hide.

Then a scary looking man wielding a knife comes to your door and says is Fred here?

Do you lie? Even though lying is wrong? Do you commit a small wrong to prevent a large wrong (Fred being murdered)? Would the large wrong be somehow your fault? Is your moral responsibility to always behave in the most moralistic way purely for you (so, tell the truth) or to take account of the impact of your moralistic actions on other people (Fred dies because you won't lie).

It's an interesting discussion point but is, of course, mostly bollocks in real life.

Mary's response to the theoretical route this discussion has taken reminded me of it, that's all.

Yeah that's the one. Wasn't Kant's answer (partly) that you don't lie because if everyone did this under all similar circumstances then we'd never know who was telling the truth and the social contract would collapse?

Yeah. I think so. I've never studied philosophy so don't have great knowledge of it. But I think his view was the utilitarian view of least harm to most number of people is wrong because you are assuming you know all the facts and know the outcomes. Instead you have to do what you know to be the most moral way for you personally to behave.

Because after all, the guy at the door might not be a violent maniac. Fred could be looking to mislead him or get him in trouble for carrying a knife. Maybe Fred forced the knife on him then ran. You could end up colluding with Fred in an evil act because you have made an assessment of the situation and arrogantly assumed you actually know what is going on. When you don't.

Anyway sorry for the derail I really must find a chance to study philosophy properly in real life lol

I think you have nailed it Batteries! At least, that was my recollection.

Or...don't open the door in the first place to a potential murderer!

Hi Manclife, sorry to be a pain, but you said this yesterday on a different thread:

I also champion the principal of believing victims of sexual crimes and have done since even before I became a rape crisis responder

Do you stand by that statement?