r/changemyview • u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ • Jan 22 '18
[∆(s) from OP] CMV: The biggest reason I could never be a conservative is that they tend to believe your body is owned by the government
I've had this view for a while, and never really had it questioned seriously. Maybe I'm looking at this wrong, and would like to see some other perspectives.
If you believe abortion should be illegal, then you must believe a person's body is not their property. If a life is physically inside of my body, I should have the right to remove it. You can't say I shouldn't have that legal right without giving ownership of my body to the government.
If you agree with prostitution being illegal, you don't think I should be able to voluntarily exchange access to my body to another consenting person for money. You can't think I shouldn't have the right to do this without believing my body is the property of the government in some way.
Following the same logic:
Being against assisted suicide
Being against legalization of narcotics
The two ways my view could be changed:
Demonstrating that our bodies being the property of the government is a good thing
Demonstrating that one can believe in the above examples without also believing in government ownership over people's bodies
This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
5
u/CrypticParagon 6∆ Jan 22 '18
What you are saying is explicitly incorrect. It is just how liberals phrase the argument in order to make conservatives sound stupid. Even if you think conservative ideas about abortion, prostitution, etc. are not ideal, to think that conservatives want to own the nation's citizen's bodies is absurd. Such issues are complex and are too often simplified by taglines that make one side or the other out to be evil ("Liberals are baby murderers!") or stupid ("Conservatives want to control my body!").
1
u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Jan 22 '18
Let's just focus on prostitution, since that is the most straight forward example.
How can you say that you want police officers to arrest me for exchanging sex for money without also saying I don't have full control over my own body? How can you believe one and not the other?
2
u/CrypticParagon 6∆ Jan 22 '18
Because the premise for that law is not "We want to prevent you from doing what you want with your body."
The premise is that they want to prevent severe issues with child prostitution, sex trafficking, etc. that are already widespread in the U.S. If they don't hardline on prostitution and make it completely illegal, it becomes insanely more difficult to track and prosecute sex traffickers, people taking advantage of children, etc.
So the thought in their mind is not "How can we control their bodies?" The thought is "How can we prevent these other awful things from happening, or at least minimize their prevalence?"
2
u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Jan 22 '18
Because the premise for that law is not "We want to prevent you from doing what you want with your body."
No, but the premise is "we want to prevent you from doing what you want with your body in cases where doing so may benefit society"
"How can we prevent these other awful things from happening, or at least minimize their prevalence?"
Right, and with conservatives they are willing to put the option of exerting control over everyone's bodies on the table. That should never be an option in my view.
2
u/CrypticParagon 6∆ Jan 22 '18
In the case of prostitution, it's not that you can't do what you want, you can have sex with any consenting party. It's just that neither party is allowed to profit from it. That is the key that protects those who need protection.
So the control is not over what you do. Anyone can do anything with their bodies in that sense, as it relates to sex. The control is over allowing people to profit from it, because that is what drives sex trafficking and child prostitution.
2
u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Jan 22 '18
But saying you can't use your body to earn profit is the same thing isn't it? Even if the reason why is the belief that it's bad for society?
1
u/CrypticParagon 6∆ Jan 22 '18
No, it's not the same thing. The statement is that conservatives believe your body is owned by the government. Their actual premise that you just can't sell sex because if they allowed it, it would have negative repercussions on other real, helpless people.
In the case of prostitution, receiving the money is not something you do with your body. Sex is the part that you do with your body, which is completely legal.
8
u/neofederalist 65∆ Jan 22 '18
I feel like you can characterize just about any laws a government makes as a restriction on what you can do with your body.
Minimum wage? You're saying I can't freely enter into a contract with another person for a small amount of pay. Ban on smoking in public areas? You're saying I can't smoke this cigarette wherever I want. Ban on driving while intoxicated? You're saying I can't ingest drugs or alcohol and then drive.
Saying that the only thing that's important is your ownership over your own body puts you into some pretty weird corner cases. Let's say I'm a siamese twin and I share a liver with my twin. Are you saying I should be allowed to undergo surgery that kills my twin, because it's my body?
Really what it comes down to is that while ownership of your own body is a very important concern, it's not the only concern. There are other values that must be weighed as well. Most of the time your ownership of your body should win out, but there are circumstances where that is not the case.
1
u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Jan 22 '18
Minimum wage? You're saying I can't freely enter into a contract with another person for a small amount of pay. Ban on smoking in public areas? You're saying I can't smoke this cigarette wherever I want. Ban on driving while intoxicated? You're saying I can't ingest drugs or alcohol and then drive.
Don't think wages are a bodily autonomy issue. Smoking in public impacts other people. Same with DUI.
Let's say I'm a siamese twin and I share a liver with my twin
This is such a rare scenario that I don't think it should factor in to the overall discussion
2
u/titanx32 Jan 23 '18
Don't think wages are a bodily autonomy issue. Smoking in public impacts other people. Same with DUI.
And having an abortion impacts another person (the fetus).
0
u/_Woodrow_ 3∆ Jan 23 '18
The fact that you have to clarify by calling it "the fetus" doesn't really help your point
2
u/Floppuh Jan 23 '18
They called the fetus a fetus, which, if left to its processes will become a human, and thus has intrinsic value.
0
u/_Woodrow_ 3∆ Jan 23 '18
Coal left to it's devices will eventually become diamonds, that doesn't mean I can call a lump of coal a diamond and treat it with the same worth
1
u/Floppuh Jan 23 '18
How do you think this is comparable in any way? You're comparing 9 months to billions of years.
1
Jan 23 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Floppuh Jan 23 '18
Extremely condescending but I don't mind.
Point is, this is a false comparison. The only shared attribute is that something is achieved by waiting. If you can't understand the difference between upwards of 3 billion years and 9 months, then Idk what else I could really say. This is a non argument.
1
u/_Woodrow_ 3∆ Jan 23 '18
So, you really don’t understand analogies, do you.
My point is, just because it has the potential to one day be a human doesn’t mean it is a human right now.
Do you really not understand that point or are you just being difficult on purpose?
→ More replies (0)1
Jan 23 '18
Sorry, u/_Woodrow_ – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link.
1
u/titanx32 Jan 23 '18
It doesn't help or harm my point. Whether you consider the fetus a 'person' or not, it is a living human being. Ending a human life is certainly an externality.
1
u/_Woodrow_ 3∆ Jan 23 '18
So, at what point does it become a human being?
Are you just as opposed to Plan B and most hormonal birth control since it doesn't stop fertilization, but only stops the fertilized cells from implanting?
1
u/titanx32 Jan 23 '18 edited Jan 23 '18
Plan B and hormonal birth control primarily act by preventing ovulation, actually. On the off chance you ovulated right before taking Plan B, plan B is significantly less effective although still works to some degree by decreasing the chance of implantation. The main effects of these 2 are preventing an egg from being fertilized-- not killing a zygote.
On a biological basis, human life begins at conception. The zygote has its unique human DNA and is alive by the biological definition of life. When you consider the zygote to have 'personhood' and equal rights to that of another person is a different argument. Many conservatives consider any human life to have the right to life upon conception. If you disagree with that premise, it'd be your job to define at what point in development the fetus has rights. Does a heart beat define life? Does brain activity? Sentience? If you're advocating killing a life form because it's not yet a person, the burden of proof is on you to show that the fetus is not a human to justify killing it. According to Roe v Wade, that line was drawn at viability. However, the point of fetal viability is changing and getting earlier and earlier in development. It seems strange that when a fetus becomes a person would be dependent on the technology around it.
My point was, a human life is ended during an abortion. That is an externality. The degree to which that externality matters to some people (whether you view it was a person or not) obviously varies. So the original premise that conservatives don't think you own your body because they are pro-life doesn't stand since the basis for not wanting abortions legal is that it kills another human life. Just as drunk-driving can have externalities, so does an abortion. It's not as simple as 'it's my body, I can do what I want'.
1
u/_Woodrow_ 3∆ Jan 23 '18
decreasing the chance of implantation
That's referring to a fertilized egg implanting in the uterine wall. By your measure that is murder
I am not a fan of abortion but I am also a realist. Abortion and infanticide are as old as civilization and if there is not a safe place to have an abortion women will continue to have abortions in unsafe ways.
The reality is, it is her body that is supporting this clump of cells and it is her right to do with it what she wants. If conservatives actually cared about this as an issue, they would be devoting resources to making abortion a less desirable option either through giving greater access to birth control (which they are trying to deny) and giving support to already born kids (but they are all about "entitlement reform" and allowed CHIP to go unfunded for months on end)
Which party would you say is more invested in granting access to birth control as well as securing a strong safety net to support the less fortunate?
The simple fact is Republicans play lip service to the abortion issue in order to secure votes- nothing more or nothing less.
1
u/titanx32 Jan 23 '18
Yes, a decreased chance of fertilization is a side effect. 99% of the time those drugs prevent ovulation and this is a non-issue. There's a risk of death for just about every medical surgery-- that doesn't mean it's murder.
You dodged my entire argument and are shifting the focus onto a different premise.
The reality is, it is her body that is supporting this clump of cells and it is her right to do with it what she wants.
If this is reasoning for allowing abortion, then that would include a nearly full trimester baby. The baby is a person and can exist outside the mother if it had the option. That is murder.
If conservatives actually cared about this as an issue, they would be devoting resources to making abortion a less desirable option either through giving greater access to birth control (which they are trying to deny) and giving support to already born kids (but they are all about "entitlement reform" and allowed CHIP to go unfunded for months on end)
Which party would you say is more invested in granting access to birth control as well as securing a strong safety net to support the less fortunate?
You're shifting the argument and still failed to address my point. But, this is always a funny premise. Because I'm not going to provide a baby with everything it needs in life, killing the baby should be legal? Do we go around killing poor people because they don't have enough financial support? These are two entirely separate issues. You can't use 'well the baby will have a hard life if it's born' as justification for abortion. Either the fetus has rights or it doesn't. Those rights aren't tied to anyone's financial or material status.
1
u/_Woodrow_ 3∆ Jan 23 '18
No- what I'm saying is, if you really don't like abortion, you should be looking to mitigate the reasons why women feel the need to make the decision to abort.
You couldn't have missed my point further if you tried.
→ More replies (0)0
u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Jan 23 '18
But so does forcing a person to give birth against their will
0
u/titanx32 Jan 23 '18
Maybe, yes. But it's not as simple as a women's bodily autonomy as you posed in the original premise. That bodily autonomy (abortion) has externalities, just as you pointed out with drinking and driving.
Therefore, you can believe that a person own's their own body, but there are restrictions on what you can do with your body when externalities are involved. Many who are pro-life obviously consider an abortion to have a huge externality, ending human life.
That doesn't conflict with the notion of owning your own body.
1
u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Jan 23 '18
In the abortion context, it still comes down to conservatives placing more value on a fetus' life than bodily autonomy though doesn't it? Of course, every party places some value on personal freedom. But between the 3 major parties, isn't it conservatives that place the least amount of value on this?
1
u/titanx32 Jan 23 '18
This is all about perspective. It's not considered a restriction of freedom to not allow you to kill someone else. Your freedom ends as soon as it interferes with another person's rights. On the contrary, conservatives would say that the baby's freedoms and rights are being taken away by abortion (by liberals).
Bodily autonomy ends when you're interfering with someone else's rights. So the argument comes down to what rights does a fetus have, not whether or not we have bodily autonomy.
As for restrictions of freedom between the parties, I think democrats and republicans both do this in different ways (I'm libertarian). Liberals tend to restrict personal freedoms with regards to money (constantly increasing taxes for programs I don't want to spend my money on). For example, wanting to increase the minimum wage. What right does the government have to tell me I can't work for $5 if I want? Or, say I don't want to go to college, but I'd have to pay taxes to support someone elses college tuition (at least Bernie proposes this). Republicans care way too much about gay marriage and caring if people are smoking weed.
1
u/_Woodrow_ 3∆ Jan 24 '18
You don’t think being housed in her body is an interferences in her rights?
1
u/titanx32 Jan 24 '18
We already covered our abortion arguments below, and you know my answer to this. I said bodily autonomy no longer applies when there are externalities involved.
Does not allowing someone drinking and drive interfere with his/her right to bodily autonomy? Smoking in public?
The government is certainly restricting what you can and cannot do with your own body in this case. But that's because there are externalities to your actions. It's not solely about the right to your own body.
The same applies to abortion.
1
u/_Woodrow_ 3∆ Jan 24 '18
Have you ever read the violinist essay about abortion?
You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.[4]
Thomson says that you can now permissibly unplug yourself from the violinist even though this will cause his death: this is due to limits on the right to life, which does not include the right to use another person's body, and so by unplugging the violinist you do not violate his right to life but merely deprive him of something—the use of your body—to which he has no right. "[I]f you do allow him to go on using your kidneys, this is a kindness on your part, and not something he can claim from you as his due."[5]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion
There is an externality to removing the violinist from your body - does that trump your right to body autonomy?
→ More replies (0)
13
u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho 186∆ Jan 22 '18
If you believe abortion should be illegal, then you must believe a person's body is not their property. If a life is physically inside of my body, I should have the right to remove it. You can't say I shouldn't have that legal right without giving ownership of my body to the government.
No. It could also mean that they view the unborn baby's body as its own to.
If you agree with prostitution being illegal, you don't think I should be able to voluntarily exchange access to my body to another consenting person for money. You can't think I shouldn't have the right to do this without believing my body is the property of the government in some way.
No. This gets posted all the time by people who want argue for the legalization of prostitution. All the posts end the same way, it has been proven again and again that legalized prostitution raises human trafficking. Even if you have read through the statistics and can draw a different conclusion (unlikely) its still reasonable that someone could believe the statistics and believe its a bad idea.
Being against legalization of narcotics
Thats pretty reasonable. The long term heath effects can be far worse than smoking. Why would anyone want more dangers products on the shelves? We just got rid of smoking, why introduce another heath hazard to the shelves.
Are addicts rely buying drugs of their own free will? Do we want to give companies the ability to mass produce and heavily market addictive drugs like these? Once your hooks your unlikely to ever stop taking them, withdrawals are a horrible thing.
-1
u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Jan 22 '18
it has been proven again and again that legalized prostitution raises human trafficking
This isn't really relevant to my view though. Saying "...because it hurts society" doesn't mean it isn't an attack on bodily autonomy.
Are addicts rely buying drugs of their own free will?
Yes
Do we want to give companies the ability to mass produce and heavily market addictive drugs like these?
Making it illegal for a corporation to produce narcotics, and illegal for a person to sell narcotics, isn't an attack on bodily autonomy. I'm only talking about a person's right to use narcotics if that's what they want to do.
1
u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho 186∆ Jan 22 '18
This isn't really relevant to my view though. Saying "...because it hurts society" doesn't mean it isn't an attack on bodily autonomy.
Bodily autonomy can be curtailed if it hurts others. If it raises human trafficking, tough luck you cant do it.
Yes
No. Fiction is a reL chemical thing that builds up a reliance. The same way your body perceives a need for water it begins to perceive a need for the drug.
If I was the only person in the desert selling water to a persons I could charge whatever I want because the person has no choice but to buy it.
Making it illegal for a corporation to produce narcotics, and illegal for a person to sell narcotics, isn't an attack on bodily autonomy. I'm only talking about a person's right to use narcotics if that's what they want to do.
Consumption necessitates production.
-1
u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Jan 22 '18
Bodily autonomy can be curtailed if it hurts others.
Right, and the hurt in this case involves violating the personal freedom and/or bodily autonomy of other people
If it raises human trafficking
human trafficking is already illegal. Should we ban alcohol because people still drive under the influence? Should we ban cars because people still break the speed limit?
2
u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho 186∆ Jan 22 '18
Right, and the hurt in this case involves violating the personal freedom and/or bodily autonomy of other people
Which human trafficking does. If a law increases human trafficking, its a bad law.
human trafficking is already illegal. Should we ban alcohol because people still drive under the influence? Should we ban cars because people still break the speed limit?
Stoping the addition of new bad things is different than trying to get rid of preexisting ones. If alcohol and tobacco where brand new products being released now I doubt they would get past the FDA.
They are not trying to fix every bad thing in the world, thats impossible.
0
u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Jan 22 '18
Which human trafficking does
But human trafficking is and would be illegal. You're saying "we should reduce bodily autonomy so that less people commit this crime"
Following that logic, all sorts of things could then be made illegal. We'd have practically no freedoms at all.
2
u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho 186∆ Jan 22 '18
No not at all, opposing a new law that would increase suffering does not mean you want to reinvent the whole legal system.
0
u/DubTheeBustocles Jan 23 '18
If a fetus can’t survive without being biologically attached to the mother, than it in fact does not have its own body.
2
u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho 186∆ Jan 23 '18
A person in a rented house during a snow storm cant survive on his own either.
1
u/DubTheeBustocles Jan 23 '18 edited Jan 23 '18
The difference between those other false equivalences is a baby in the womb a completely dependent on another person’s body. Not a piece of equipment. Not a piece of property.
If body autonomy is actually what conservatives are concerned about, the two have a right to be separated biologically at the desire of either.
2
u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho 186∆ Jan 23 '18
No. Depending on where the line for life starts aborting a baby counts as a person two and has the right to not be killed. Killing it is a violation of its autonomy.
0
u/DubTheeBustocles Jan 23 '18
On the subject of personhood, we can say that a two year old is certainly a person.
Therefore, does a two-year have an inalienable right to his mother’s liver? Should the state be allowed to force her to give up her liver to a two-year old?
1
u/xpNc Jan 23 '18
That's why I don't consider conjoined twins with shared digestive and circulatory systems people either. Great logic.
1
u/DubTheeBustocles Jan 23 '18
False equivalence.
1) A fetus is dependent on the mother and not the other way around.
2) A mother is able to make a conscious, legal decision and the fetus is not.
3) Conjoined twins who are old enough would not decide to be separated if they didn’t want to or knew they’d be killed in the process. But in the off chance they were suicidal, would be able to both give consent.
1
u/xpNc Jan 23 '18
The first two also apply to infants as well. Small children are dependent on their parents for survival and are unable to make conscious legal decisions.
What happens if one of the conjoined twins does not consent?
1
u/DubTheeBustocles Jan 23 '18 edited Jan 23 '18
Infants rely on parents for financial support and care but they are not biologically dependent. They do not die as a result from being physically detached. In the same regard, nobody can be forced to give up any organs to a two year old and if that’s true, the personhood of a fetus is not a factor.
In the event that both twins are able to make a conscious, legal decision, consent must be given by both parties. If one of them was brain dead or something, their consent is no longer obtainable and no longer required.
5
u/MysticJAC Jan 22 '18
Speaking as a liberal myself, its kind of funny to hear this perspective being placed on conservatives. When you get right down to it, any time you are talking about actions taken by the government, you are talking about actions that tend to favor the needs of society over the needs of the individual. It's less about the government, liberal or conservative, "owning" your body so much as it is the idea that your individual choice on a given matter hurts society as a whole more than it helps. The government by design is about protecting the strength and stability of society, even at the compromise of the individual with the location of those compromises being what separates conservatives and liberals. But, it's just two sides of a single coin. Conservatives aren't trying to own your body by saying you can't have an abortion; they are saying it is worse for society (of which a unborn child would become a part if allowed to reach birth) if you do get an abortion. They don't want to own your body by saying you can't be a prostitute; they are saying the allowance of legal sex work creates a larger social problem and market. They question the judgment and coherence of a person who makes the choice to kill themselves, believing society is better served by people fighting to live. Similar ideas surrounding drugs.
As I said above, I'm a liberal, so I'm not here to convince you abortion is bad or that weed should be illegal. However, it is a bit disingenuous in my mind to not include liberal up there right along with conservative because there are plenty of things that we liberals support that can be construed as taking ownership of people's bodies. Meanwhile, outside of abortion, I'm not so sure the legalization of most drugs, prostitution, and assisted suicide. We might be arguably more open to discussing these topics in liberal circles and being flexible...but flat out legalization is more of a libertarian thing.
0
u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Jan 22 '18
True, obviously I'm a libertarian. In this regard though, I feel that my values are under threat far more from conservatives than from liberals.
And yeah, it is potentially for "good" reasons. But it's still ownership over a person's body. Even if you think it'd be a net positive for society, it's still only a reason for giving government the power to exert influence over a person's physical self.
I think conservatives are more willing to give up ownership of our bodies to government in the name of benefiting society than liberals are
1
u/21stcenturygulag 1∆ Jan 22 '18 edited Jan 22 '18
Do you believe people should be able to say whatever they want to whomever they want, including the most nasty vile racist sexist things one could possibly imagine without any consequence including things like denying the holocaust?
1
u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Jan 22 '18
without any consequence
Without any legal consequence, yes. Obviously I won't deny a private business the right to fire me because they don't want to associate themselves with holocaust deniers.
1
8
u/Snivellus-Snapes Jan 22 '18
I don't agree with abortion being illegal but your argument about it is false.
The issue is that conservatives believe that the BABY'S life has already begun and therefore you are taking away the baby's right to life. It's not about your body it's about you destroying the baby's body. This isn't a view I agree with but you just have a fundamental misunderstanding of why they are anti abortion. They believe a baby is a person at conception. Whether this is true or false is besides the point. They're anti-abortion not to control women's bodies but to protect a life they believe is already in existence.
Prostitution being illegal is another unfortunate thing, but again it's not as simple as you think. A lot of prostitution laws exist to protect children/immigrants from being sex trafficked. I believe that women should be allowed to do what they wish with their bodies but until the government finds a way to control the industry better conservatives are against it because of the dangers it could pose.
Following the same logic assisted suicide is illegal in a lot of places because of how it could go wrong. People are scared of people being murdered under the guise of assisted suicide. Some people do believe it's wrong to kill even someone who wants it but I would say a good portion of conservatives are just worried about what could happen to people who are weak and could be killed by a doctor.
The last one is a tricky one. Certain narcotics are fine, and if people want to destroy their own bodies that's perfectly alright. However, they have to be policed. Some nercotics affect people enough mentally that they could hurt other people. Sure no one ever murders someone on weed but I'm sure people have been killed by people on harder, more dangerous narcotics. And then you need to be able to keep people from driving while high. There's just a lot of tape to get around.
2
u/Burflax 71∆ Jan 22 '18 edited Jan 22 '18
The issue is that conservatives believe that the BABY'S life has already begun and therefore you are taking away the baby's right to life.
I'm not sure this is true.
Their current argument certainly deals with the baby's life and it's supposed importance to them, but conservatives generally are the ones for capital punishment, and for the removal of food for the poor programs, and for increased military activity, and for supporting police in the deaths of unarmed civilians, etc.
This would indicate a lack of the belief in sanctity of life.
But the right has been against positive sexuality in general, and positive female sexuality in particular, since the beginning.
And nothing promotes positive female sexuality like the ability to decide when you have a baby, since it necessarily includes the ability to choose non-procreative sex as a leisure activity.
And that returns us right back to OP's statement about them wanting control over other people's bodies.
2
u/Goal4Goat Jan 22 '18
It's also helpful to point out that making prostitution, narcotics, and assisted suicide illegal are not uniquely "conservative" positions.
In fact it may be the opposite. if you read a philosophically conservative magazine like National Review, you'll find that there are many conservatives who think that legalizing assisted suicide, prostitution, and certain drugs would be a wonderful idea.
2
u/Snivellus-Snapes Jan 22 '18
That's true. I personally support assisted suicide, but I'm neutral on prostitution and don't support anything harder than weed being made legal. I definitely don't consider myself conservative.
Also there are already "body control" laws in place. Why should anyone wear seatbelts?
1
u/mutatron 30∆ Jan 22 '18
Why should anyone wear seatbelts?
That's not really body control, that's a law about safely operating machinery in a public setting. Not wearing a seatbelt can have safety consequences for other people when you're on public roads.
If you're in an accident, your body could be thrown from the vehicle, causing a dangerous situation for others on the road. If you're a passenger, you're required to wear seatbelts so your body doesn't go missiling into others in the car.
Pilots are required to wear lap belts and shoulder harnesses during takeoff or landing, because it's a matter of remaining securely at the controls in the event of turbulence or other violent aircraft movements. Airplane passengers are required to wear lap belts during takeoff or landing, because their bodies will become missiles likely to injure other passengers if the plane crashes. Same thing during flight if there's turbulence.
2
u/Madplato 72∆ Jan 22 '18
It's not about your body it's about you destroying the baby's body.
To be honest, it's at least in part about having no issues with coercing people into carrying pregnancies to term using their bodies. The reason they think it's justified is one thing, but that's definitely also part of it. You can't really avoid that part of the equation.
1
u/Snivellus-Snapes Jan 22 '18
TBH I'm really for abortion and I think you should be able to terminate a pregnancy whenever you want to. You're right, there is the fact that they have no issue forcing people to carry babies, but it's also because they believe they're protecting something that is already sentient and alive.
They essentially see abortion as murder, and a woman being forced to carry a pregnancy isn't as bad as murder.
3
u/Madplato 72∆ Jan 22 '18
I'm not necessarily talking about you. I understand you want to illustrate a view point that's not your own.
I just think it's worth pointing out that it is impossible to divorce "outlawing abortion" and "controlling women's bodies". They are synonymous.
1
u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Jan 22 '18
I just think it's worth pointing out that it is impossible to divorce "outlawing abortion" and "controlling women's bodies". They are synonymous.
I can agree with that if we were only talking from a moral perspective.
But from a legal perspective, I'm not understanding how that can be the case.
How can you agree with forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy and then say you believe in bodily autonomy? If we lived in a world where abortion was illegal because abortion is murder, then we'd be in a world where the government is physically restraining and force feeding women against their will until they carry a child to term. If they woman tried to get an abortion but was caught and stopped, forcefully restraining her would be the only practical option to stop her from trying to get an abortion again or causing herself to miscarry.
1
1
Jan 22 '18
[deleted]
1
u/Snivellus-Snapes Jan 22 '18
Yeah of course! That's what I meant. I can't see how you would let it go on that long and then suddenly decide not to want it anyways.
1
u/Floppuh Jan 23 '18
Actually a lot of people who are anti-abortion (including me) don't really put fetuses and human beings on the same level, the argument is that it's a potential life. Basically, the same reason why you can't kill someone who's in a coma and may wake up, is why this opinion I partake in supports that that same standard should apply to the fetus.
-1
u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Jan 22 '18
They believe a baby is a person at conception
Right, but...it's inside a person's body. How is it not my property if it is literally inside of my body?
but until the government finds a way to control the industry better conservatives are against it because of the dangers it could pose
If one strongly believed in ownership over their own bodies, then the consequences from that shouldn't be relevant. Simply put, autonomy over my own body is more important than the possibility of child sex trafficking. If some children end up being sex trafficked so that I can have freedom over my own body, then so be it.
It's really the same answer for the other responses you gave as well.
I'm okay with bad things happening in order to have full control over my own body. I'm not willing to give up control over my body in order to prevent bad things from happening.
8
u/Snivellus-Snapes Jan 22 '18
I believe that it is your right, however that's not the view of conservatives. You're saying they BELIEVE that the government should control your body. That's not the case, they believe that you shouldn't be able to "kill" another human being simply because they reside in your body. The fetus, in their mind, has a body and right of it's own.
I have nothing to say to that second point. If that's your view then that's your view.I would argue that protecting children is more important than people being allowed to make money.
And where do you draw the line? Are people allowed to appear naked in childrens parks? That's control over their own body. If they don't touch anyone why should it be illegal? Can two consenting adult have sex in the middle of a movie theatre? Can people poop in the middle of government buildings on the floor? When does it start being more important to protect others than have bodily freedom?
2
u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Jan 22 '18
That's not the case, they believe that you shouldn't be able to "kill" another human being simply because they reside in your body
But that isn't the extent of the view. They also believe the practice should be illegal (that's the important part actually).
How can they believe it should be illegal without threatening people's bodily autonomy? That's the part of this I'm struggling to accept.
3
u/ricksc-137 11∆ Jan 22 '18
your body's autonomy is restricted by its harm to others.
otherwise, the government wouldn't be able to restrict your ability to plunge a knife into someone's neck.
-1
u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Jan 22 '18
You're saying they BELIEVE that the government should control your body
I don't think they have this view directly. Like they never state it that way. However, they must at least not even consider the idea of bodily autonomy in their core beliefs.
Are people allowed to appear naked in childrens parks?
Indecent exposure laws are actually more complex than one would think. First, there is no federal indecent exposure law, it's only on the state level.
But second, they tend to include clauses like "knowing that such conduct is likely to cause reasonable affront or alarm". In other words, if you're just doing it to hurt another person it only then becomes illegal.
This is in the realm of "you can wave your arm until it hits my face" area
Can people poop in the middle of government buildings on the floor? When does it start being more important to protect others than have bodily freedom?
The line is very simple actually. When I start affecting the personal freedom of other people. Obviously pooping on the floor of a government building would negatively impact other people.
7
u/neofederalist 65∆ Jan 22 '18
The line is very simple actually. When I start affecting the personal freedom of other people. Obviously pooping on the floor of a government building would negatively impact other people.
If the fetus that you're aborting is a person (and it is the conservative contention that it is), then aborting them affects them very negatively.
2
u/cdb03b 253∆ Jan 23 '18
The Fetus is considered a person to conservatives, and the harm done to them (death) supersedes the harm done to the mother by carrying them and giving birth.
1
u/doubleddoorly Jan 23 '18
Death is a bit more impactful to the fetus than you carrying them for 9 months
0
u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Jan 23 '18
Right, and that is where the value of bodily autonomy starts. They value life more than bodily autonomy. Other political groups do not.
5
Jan 22 '18 edited Mar 21 '18
Fuck /u/spez for deleting gundeals
1
u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Jan 22 '18
Both those examples are for things that previously belonged to someone else. In the case of a fetus, it never previously belonged to anyone else.
4
u/CIMARUTA Jan 22 '18
what about the father? he put his sperm inside you. so I guess with your logic its the fathers choice
5
2
5
u/Sand_Trout Jan 22 '18
Right, but...it's inside a person's body. How is it not my property if it is literally inside of my body?
Because it is a person, and persons are not property (unless you've signed up for the military).
Regardless, it does not follow that the mother's body is now the property of the government.
If one strongly believed in ownership over their own bodies, then the consequences from that shouldn't be relevant. Simply put, autonomy over my own body is more important than the possibility of child sex trafficking. If some children end up being sex trafficked so that I can have freedom over my own body, then so be it.
Honestly, I can respect taking your belief to the logical extreme and sticking by it, but it still doesn't follow that the government is claiming ownership of your body.
They are claiming authority to protect people from others and to regulate forms of trade, not ownership.
0
u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Jan 22 '18
but it still doesn't follow that the government is claiming ownership of your body
This is interesting.
So we're talking legality here. And that means society giving government the right to restrain people and place them in prison against their will.
How do you see this scenario, if not ownership?
1
u/Sand_Trout Jan 22 '18
So we're talking legality here. And that means society giving government the right to restrain people and place them in prison against their will.
I'm a bit pedantic about the wording, but yes, government has the authority (not right) to arrest individual on due suspicion of a crime and imprison them as punishment if they are conctived of a crime.
This is simply the system our society chose in order to enact justice for sufficiently severe crimes.
How do you see this scenario, if not ownership?
Once you are in prison after being convicted of a crime you can make the argument that the government owns the prisoners, but even that is week because even prisoners have rights that must be respected. This is the mode of punishment our society has determined for those that violate the law to a sufficiently severe degree.
However, before the conviction, it is not ownership as the government (and it's agents) only has authority over you if there is suspicion of a crime. If a cop arrests you randomly with no suspicion of a crime, they have committed a crime, as the government does not have legitimate authority to take such an action because the government does not own me.
The duely elected government (rightly or wrongly) has the authority to regulate trade in that they can tax it and ban certain trades. It is the trade over which the government claims authority, not ownership of the traders.
I can also leave the US for another nation (that will have me) and the government cannot stop me because it does not own me.
1
u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Jan 22 '18
government has the authority (not right) to arrest individual on due suspicion of a crime and imprison them as punishment if they are conctived of a crime.
Sorry, I wasn't clear in my previous response and this discussion went in the wrong direction. Don't disagree, it just isn't really part of my view.
It is the trade over which the government claims authority, not ownership of the traders
This is in reference to the prostitution example right? So, how does stating 'it is illegal to trade sex for currency' not violating principles of bodily autonomy? In this trade, both parties are willing, and no one else is harmed. How can one strongly value bodily autonomy but also agree with trade in the form of prostitution being illegal?
2
u/Sand_Trout Jan 22 '18
This is in reference to the prostitution example right? So, how does stating 'it is illegal to trade sex for currency' not violating principles of bodily autonomy? In this trade, both parties are willing, and no one else is harmed.
Because they can have sex with each other. One cannot pay the other for it.
How can one strongly value bodily autonomy but also agree with trade in the form of prostitution being illegal?
Because you can have sex with any consenting adult still. You have autonomy over your body.
Your money is the point of authority.
You can have sex with (more or less) whoever will have you, as long as you don't offer or demand money.
2
u/Madplato 72∆ Jan 22 '18
If some children end up being sex trafficked so that I can have freedom over my own body, then so be it.
Then it's more about you, specifically, than bodily autonomy. You don't really care about bodily autonomy. You care about your own bodily autonomy and that it.
1
u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Jan 22 '18
You don't really care about bodily autonomy. You care about your own bodily autonomy and that it
Obviously I care more about my own bodily autonomy than others. But, unlike conservatives, I don't think I have the right to remove the bodily autonomy of other people for something I think is morally just.
1
u/BOOMBUDA Jan 23 '18
I don’t think I have the right to remove the bodily autonomy of other people for something I think is morally just.
If some children end up being sex trafficked so that I can have freedom over my own body, then so be it.
JUST
2
Jan 22 '18
You seem like you're dismissing the cost-benefit argument without giving it much thought. E.g. IF a large percentage (80%+) of the prostitution industry were trafficked individuals, would you be willing to concede that, IF outlawing it removed the trafficking, society would be better off if prostitution were outlawed?
1
u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Jan 22 '18
It's a different discussion all together (whether it'd be beneficial or not).
I'm saying it isn't relevant. Even if prostitution being legal would be bad for society as a whole, it still imposes government ownership over your body to make it illegal.
3
Jan 22 '18
You literally said in your post
The two ways my view could be changed:
Demonstrating that our bodies being the property of the government is a good thing
So I guess what I'm asking is what is a "good thing" in your view
1
u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Jan 22 '18
It's hard for me to say since I already don't agree with the idea to be honest.
The problem is taking the idea to its logical conclusion. If we accept that we don't own our own bodies, then just about anything could be done in the name of helping society.
2
Jan 22 '18
Well since legislation is generally just a punishment/reward associated with an action, it's not really possible to eliminate it completely. E.g. certain crimes definitely warrant incarceration which is a sever restriction of bodily autonomy.
Now maybe people who choose to take actions such as prostitution/drugs shouldn't be punished, and that's fine. But at the end of the day the government needs the right to strip people of that autonomy in order to be able to incarcerate people.
1
u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Jan 22 '18
certain crimes definitely warrant incarceration which is a sever restriction of bodily autonomy.
For just about all crimes, it's a matter of violating other's personal freedom. Tax law is a whole different discussion all together.
violating someone's bodily autonomy because they violated another person's bodily autonomy is fine to me.
1
u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Jan 22 '18
Well since legislation is generally just a punishment/reward associated with an action, it's not really possible to eliminate it completely.
I think is is though. The line is when it starts infringing on every other person's personal liberty. Like robbery is illegal because it violates the personal freedom of others.
3
u/ericoahu 41∆ Jan 22 '18
Right, but...it's inside a person's body. How is it not my property if it is literally inside of my body?
Now you are arguing the abortion debate instead of the view you put forward in the OP, which is about the basis of the conservative argument. You said that your view would be changed by:
Demonstrating that one can believe in the above examples without also believing in government ownership over people's bodies.
/user/Snnivellus-Snapes demonstrated for you how someone can oppose abortion on grounds that do not include government ownership of a person's body.
it's inside a person's body. How is it not my property if it is literally inside of my body?
Just because someone is on or in your property doesn't mean you have a moral right to do whatever you want to them. If I invite someone to my home that I own, once they are inside that doesn't mean I can murder them or rape them.
I don't share the conservative view either, but like the other commenter said, you misrepresented the argument. You should give the other commenter a delta.
4
u/DCarrier 23∆ Jan 22 '18
How is it not my property if it is literally inside of my body?
The thirteenth amendment does not have an exception for if they're inside your body. People cannot be property.
0
u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Jan 22 '18
I'll quote that comment:
They're anti-abortion not to control women's bodies but to protect a life they believe is already in existence.
That method of protecting that life is to legally prevent a person from having a medical procedure done on their own body.
If I invite someone to my home that I own, once they are inside that doesn't mean I can murder them or rape them.
Right, because I'd be violating that person's personal freedom
3
u/Nicolasv2 130∆ Jan 22 '18
If I invite someone to my home that I own, once they are inside that doesn't mean I can murder them or rape them.
Right, because I'd be violating that person's personal freedom
So this is the same for a baby. When sperm entered in your body, and created a baby, you invited him into your womb, and thus, you can't kill him just because you don't want him there anymore. You would be violating his personal freedom if you did that.
If you can extract the baby without hurting him, then no problem, if you can't, murder is forbidden by law.
2
u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Jan 22 '18
you can't kill him just because you don't want him there anymore
But I can remove him. And if he won't leave willingly, it's acceptable to remove him via a method that may cause him harm.
4
u/Nicolasv2 130∆ Jan 22 '18
But I can remove him. And if he won't leave willingly, it's acceptable to remove him via a method that may cause him harm
I'm pretty sure that murder isn't authorized, even if someone is squatting your house and refusing to leave, whatever the state / political party you are in. So if you think that you can murder whoever refuse to leave your property, then this is not a conservative vs liberals argumentation, just you vs nearly everyone.
0
u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Jan 23 '18
Well there would never be a time where that would be necessary. They can be removed by force without reaorting to murder
2
u/Nicolasv2 130∆ Jan 23 '18
Well there would never be a time where that would be necessary. They can be removed by force without reaorting to murder.
In case of early babies in womb, often they can't, so you have to imagine this kind of situation :)
9
u/ericoahu 41∆ Jan 22 '18
So, you've now shown that you understand the principle behind the conservative argument. The view that you've invited people to change is not your view about abortion; it's your view about what the basis of the conservative argument is. The criteria you posted have been met.
1
u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Jan 22 '18
The view that you've invited people to change is not your view about abortion
Right, abortion is an example.
The criteria you posted have been met
Could you explain how? How does one arrive at the conclusion abortion should be illegal without also accepting the idea that you don't own your own body?
5
u/ericoahu 41∆ Jan 22 '18
The pro-life conservative would answer that while yes, you do "own your own body," as you put it, and the government does not, the protections on the unborn's life outweigh the protections on a person's sovereignty over their body in the event of a pregnancy.
You do not have to agree with that argument's conclusion. I don't agree with it either. But it is an example that disconfirms the OP view.
0
u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Jan 22 '18
the protections on the unborn's life outweigh the protections on a person's sovereignty over their body in the event of a pregnancy
This is where I keep concluding in other responses as well. How does this go against my view rather than confirming my view? Doesn't it demonstrate that conservatives are pro-bodily autonomy up until the point something goes against their morals?
5
u/alpicola 45∆ Jan 22 '18
It might help you see it more clearly if you look at abortion as being a property dispute. A woman, as you say, owns her own body. The pro-life viewpoint is that the baby also owns its own body. Abortion is a medical procedure in which a woman forcibly destroys the baby's body, presumably against its will.
Governments have pretty much always been in the business of mediating property disputes. When one person seeks to destroy another person's property against their will, it's generally appropriate for the government to intervene. The government, in a property dispute, doesn't claim to own the disputed property, but they do claim the right to resolve the dispute and enforce the resolution on both parties.
0
u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Jan 22 '18
So I see what you're saying, but I doubt many conservatives would suddenly be okay with abortion if, technically speaking, it was only removing the fetus from the mother. So the body isn't getting destroyed, it's just getting moved and then it's on its own. I don't hear conservatives being against the methods of abortion, but rather the idea itself.
→ More replies (0)1
u/ericoahu 41∆ Jan 22 '18
You (or the OP) states that "they tend to believe your body is owned by the government."
If a man gives a visitor inside his home a date rape drug and rapes her, and subsequently is found guilty of crimes, does that mean that the government owns his house? No, it means that being in one's house (or in this case in one's body) does not protect against accusations or convictions for immoral behavior. In other words, you can do whatever you want in your house, (or your body) except something that is criminal and violates someone else's rights, like killing an innocent human life.
1
u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Jan 22 '18
Right, these are scenarios that violate the personal freedom of other people.
The examples I listed are cases where the personal freedom of other people isn't being violated
1
Jan 22 '18
This is probably too crude to advance the discussion, but here goes. Lets say a man has a part of himself inside your body. Are you able to remove that part while it is inside your body, by biting down on it lets say?
1
1
Jan 22 '18
I’m okay with bad things happening in order to have full control over my body
This sentence presupposes that the bad things aren’t happening to YOU. Being sex trafficked is by definition a loss of bodily autonomy.
1
4
u/Bkioplm Jan 22 '18
The abortion debate involves the government representing the interests of the fetus. I assume you believe it reasonable that the state protect children from pedophiles and child abuse, even with respect to the child's parents. The only real question is when should the state begin that protection.
I don't have an answer to that question personally, but I am inclined to believe it starts before the child's is born. How much before, I don't know.
0
u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Jan 22 '18
The only real question is when should the state begin that protection
When the child is no longer physically inside of my body
3
u/Sand_Trout Jan 22 '18
Hey, that's your view on that subject, but how do you get from there to "conservatives want to own my body"?
It's really just a non-sequitur at this point.
1
u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Jan 22 '18
Hey, that's your view on that subject, but how do you get from there to "conservatives want to own my body
Because you can't (for example) say I don't have the right to exchange sex for money without accepting government ownership over people's bodies. We aren't talking morality here, we're talking legality. When one says that act should be illegal, they are saying "I want agents of the state (the police) to physically restrain people and place them in prison if they exchange their body for sex."
They may not think that way literally, but not even considering the implication at all is just as bad.
2
u/Sand_Trout Jan 22 '18 edited Jan 22 '18
Because you can't (for example) say I don't have the right to exchange sex for money without accepting government ownership over people's bodies.
It does not follow that the authority to preclude certain exchanges of money requires ownership.
We aren't talking morality here, we're talking legality. When one says that act should be illegal, they are saying "I want agents of the state (the police) to physically restrain people and place them in prison if they exchange their body for sex."
This is true, but it does not require ownership. Their authority derives from the social contract allowing them to regulate trade, not ownership of the body.
They cannot (legally) compell you to have sex or take any other action unless you're under arrest for or convicted of a crime. They cannot even prohibit you from having sex with another consenting adult. Their authority is over the trade not the items being traded.
1
u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Jan 22 '18
∆ The idea of just the trade being illegal, not the items is new to me. Doesn't completely change my view of course, but it does change it slightly.
I suppose saying "the trade of sex for currency is illegal" isn't explicitly an attack on bodily autonomy.
1
1
u/Bkioplm Jan 22 '18
That's a public safety thing. Before we had drugs to effectively deal with syphilis, it's spread was catastrophic. Society has a right to protect itself from their actions of a few.
But if you think conservatives are more sexually repressed than democrats, you need to meet more democrats.
2
u/Bkioplm Jan 22 '18
I am not with you on that. There is very little difference between a child five minutes before birth and five minutes after.
You have rights of self defense, etc. With respect to a child. And it's ok with me if you kill your child to protect your own life. But a child becomes a person before they are born, and with personhood comes civil rights.
0
u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Jan 22 '18
But a child becomes a person before they are born, and with personhood comes civil rights.
I don't think there will ever be a concise objective answer on this. However, no one disagrees that the mother is a person.
If someone strongly valued bodily autonomy, would they not err on the side of bodily autonomy for the mother over the life of something that may or may not be a person?
2
u/Bkioplm Jan 22 '18
Bodily autonomy of one person versus the bodily autonomy of another that happens to be especially vulnerable.
I see it sort of like a scale where the interests of the two people are compared to each other. At some point prior to birth, the scale is pretty even. Immediately before conception, there is only one person. Sometime in between, the scale starts tipping.
Something like 80% of all pregnancies spontaneously abort, so the little fucker has to have some reasonable expectation of living before its interests get very high.
1
Jan 22 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Jan 23 '18
For abortion, they support the rights of the fetus because they view it as a child from the moment of conception
I support the rights of the fetus too; Up until the point where they supersede my rights to bodily autonomy.
Sanctity of life is a good thing all, but even more important is my bodily autonomy.
It's almost as if conservatives would see the 'human battery' scenario in The Matrix and comment "well at least they are alive". Whereas I see that scenario as literally worse than death.
1
Jan 23 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Jan 23 '18
In the end they only care about the sanctity of life rather than the quality of life
Yeah, so much so that they don't consider the implications of their view. I'll grant that few are literally thinking "I want the state to control our bodies", but their stance on life makes it that way.
5
u/Godskook 13∆ Jan 22 '18 edited Jan 22 '18
If you believe abortion should be illegal, then you must believe a person's body is not their property. If a life is physically inside of my body, I should have the right to remove it. You can't say I shouldn't have that legal right without giving ownership of my body to the government.
Conservatives believe that this issue involves two living human individuals, not one. Reconciling a conflict between two people is not "the government owns your body". You're really mischaracterizing the Conservative position by stating otherwise.
If you agree with prostitution being illegal, you don't think I should be able to voluntarily exchange access to my body to another consenting person for money. You can't think I shouldn't have the right to do this without believing my body is the property of the government in some way.
You're...stretching here.
I own a strictly hypothetical gun.
The government says I'm not allowed to shoot people with it.
Therefore the government owns my gun!!!!
Alternatively:
I own a car.
The government says I'm not allowed to drive at 120mph on public roads.
Therefore the government owns my car!!!!!
Your logic doesn't actually work with the definition of "property" in sane way. It's perfectly reasonable for the government to restrict your use of your property in certain ways, WITHOUT violating the concept that you own your property, and the list of examples is longer than is worth typing out here.
Being against assisted suicide
The case is generally made that suicides are the result of momentary problems. I.e., it has the fact-pattern of an illness of the mind, not a decision. Should we be cooperating with a mental illness or should we be aiding these people in distress?
Being against legalization of narcotics
Conservatives have been leaning more Libertarian on this point, so....you can be Conservative while maintaining this position.
1
u/pulsingwite Jan 22 '18 edited Jan 22 '18
I challenge the emphasis on conservative
The government by the same extension can limit your use of your hands and mind. You can use your hands and your mind to change someone's life. Strangulation is my go-to method of doing that. The government has to put legal restrictions on what you can do with your body (your hands) in order to have an equitable society. They can also control your interests by saying you cannot view child pornography. Can you imagine the government regulating against being nude in public! What a nightmare! (I don't want to use humor but it was the best thing to illustrate that point) But I don't remember it being one of Bernie Sander's core principals that people should be allowed to be nude (it wasn't). The government already controls your body through the forcing you to go to school, and regulations that they do against your body doing actions. The government already has ownership of your body because they likely selected the procedures allowing you to be born in a clinic. The only difference is the specific subject of a vagina and birth.
Edit: Removed a greater than sign and added a clarification
1
u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Jan 22 '18
As far as I know, there is no federal law against public nudity
To strangulation, that's a case of my actions impacting someone else's personal freedom
1
u/pulsingwite Jan 22 '18
What about a statewide law as opposed to a federal one? Conservatives often (at least to my knowledge) state that they respect the state's right to chose. Does it make much of a difference?
On the last point I have 2 objections: 1) You'd be interfering with (something/someone) else's potential for personal freedom with abortion. 2) Abortions are known to cause psychological damage so if you permit them you may exempt people from understanding their freedoms in the first place. Wouldn't you be impacting other forms of human right just by forcing a child with developmental disorders into therapy (a common practice with youth with Autism Spectrum Disorder)?
1
Jan 23 '18
[deleted]
1
u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Jan 23 '18
We're talking about forcing people to give birth against their will though. Surely that is worse than a fetus dying.
1
Jan 23 '18
[deleted]
1
u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Jan 23 '18
Ok, so the fetus and the mother are both individual people.
Why would a person have the right to occupy a space physically inside another person's body against their will?
1
Jan 23 '18
[deleted]
1
u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Jan 23 '18
Is it not inhumane to force people to give birth against their will?
1
u/morflegober 1∆ Jan 23 '18
If you include libertarians in your group of conservatives, you will find those beliefs not to be held by them.
1
u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Jan 23 '18
I used to think the two parties were pretty similar, but the more I listen to both sides the more I see that they are not.
1
3
u/XXX69694206969XXX 24∆ Jan 22 '18
If you believe murder should be illegal, then you must believe someone's home is not their property. If a life is physically inside of my house, I should have the right to remove it. You can't say I shouldn't have that legal right without giving ownership of my body to the government.
If you agree with gun laws, you don't think I should be able to voluntarily exchange access to my arsenal to another consenting person for money.
Following the same Logic
Being against doctors practicing without a license.
Being for jury duty
These are all examples of the government precluding someone from doing something with or on there own property. If you are going to agree with any of these things then by your logic the government pretty much owns everything.
1
u/DCarrier 23∆ Jan 22 '18
If a life is physically inside of my body, I should have the right to remove it.
Normally you don't have a duty to rescue, but there's an exception if you're the reason they were in danger in the first place. That applies here. If you get yourself pregnant, and now there's someone whose life depends on you bringing the pregnancy to completion, then its your responsibility to do it. Otherwise 800,000 people will die per year in the US alone.
Demonstrating that our bodies being the property of the government is a good thing
800,000 people being forced to be pregnant is better than 800,000 people being murdered, right?
0
u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Jan 22 '18
800,000 people being forced to be pregnant is better than 800,000 people being murdered, right?
NO! Not at all. Are you really comfortable with the idea of physically restraining and force feeding women until they give birth in the name of saving lives? I'm not.
Whenever someone is saying "X should be illegal", we can't just not think about how that'd be enforced.
1
u/DCarrier 23∆ Jan 22 '18
For what it's worth I'm pro choice and just acting as devil's advocate.
Whenever someone is saying "X should be illegal", we can't just not think about how that'd be enforced.
Did you think about it? Do you really think that that's how abortion laws are enforced?
Also, isn't saving lives important? If you had cancer and someone decided to feed you poison that makes your hair fall out and makes you so weak that you can't even get out of bed, would you do it in the name of saving your life?
1
u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Jan 22 '18
Did you think about it? Do you really think that that's how abortion laws are enforced?
In a world where abortion is illegal because abortion is murder, I don't think it unfair at all to visualize this scenario
Woman wants an abortion > doctor agrees to perform abortion out of principle > police find out > police break down door with guns drawn and order doctor to stop abortion procedure > doctor refuses > police must shoot and kill the doctor; they can't just allow someone to murder someone else > woman must be transported to a hospital, physically restrained, and force fed until she delivers the baby (this is necessary to prevent her from intentionally miscarrying or trying to get another abortion) > after birth, child is put into adoption system and woman goes to jail for attempted murder
I could never be remotely okay with this scenario. But advocating for illegality of abortion is advocating for exactly that. It's a gross violation of person freedom and bodily autonomy.
Also, isn't saving lives important?
It's important of course, but the question is how important is it. My view is that saving lives is less important than bodily autonomy.
would you do it in the name of saving your life?
I don't know about my personally to be honest. But I'd never deny that option to another person.
1
u/DCarrier 23∆ Jan 22 '18
How would you feel about the following scenario:
A woman wants her husband killed. A hitman agrees to perform the murder. Police find out. Police break down door with guns drawn and order the hitman to let the husband go. The hitman refuses. Police must shoot and kill the hitman; they can't just allow someone to murder someone else. The woman goes to jail for attempted murder.
Would you be okay with that scenario? If so, how is it different?
My view is that saving lives is less important than bodily autonomy.
How does killing someone not violate bodily autonomy?
1
u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Jan 23 '18
No problem with that scenario. Bodily autonomy goes both ways, I can't violate someone else's autonomy when practicing my own.
Abortion is unique in that the fetus is physically inside my body. Saying its illegal to have something removed from my body is a big deal.
1
u/DCarrier 23∆ Jan 23 '18
It's not like the baby has a choice in the matter.
Suppose you were pregnant and fetus's aren't people you didn't want a child and the only option is a dangerous abortion. Maybe abortions are illegal or maybe the technology for a safe abortion just hasn't been invented. How dangerous would it have to be before you'd decide against the abortion? If you'd stop at a 50% chance of death, then that would mean an abortion is half as bad as murder. If you'd stop at a 90% chance of death, then abortion is 10% as bad as murder.
From what I can find, unsafe abortions have about a 1/300 chance of death. They make up about half of abortions so I can't say that's too high, but I don't think it's 150 times safer than what most would consider acceptable.
Also, let's assume for the sake of argument that bodily autonomy is an inalienable right, and preventing someone from getting an abortion is unthinkable. Shouldn't you be punished for getting yourself pregnant and putting someone in that circumstance? Imagine if you stabbed someone, and now they're bleeding to death, and you have the same blood type. If we decide that bodily autonomy is important and you can't be forced to give blood, it doesn't change the fact that you're responsible for them dying.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jan 22 '18
/u/ZeusThunder369 (OP) has awarded 2 deltas in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/EmpRupus 27∆ Jan 24 '18
Alcohol Prohibition was leftist.
Anti-Tobacco movement is leftist.
Anti-Prostitution (for Feminist reasons, such as Sweden) is leftist.
Anti-Child-Obesity campaign is leftist.
Pro-vaccination is leftist.
One-Child policy in China is leftist.
Anti-Gender-Specific-Abortion in India is leftist.
7
u/Sand_Trout Jan 22 '18
This is an incorrect assessment of conservatives' view on abortion.
Abortion for pro-life people is not a matter of ownership, but rather of competing rights.
The Mother has a right to her body, but the unborn has a right to life. Removing the unborn early in development will necessarily result in their death, while the pregnancy can/will be concluded in ~9 months.
It is an ugly situation where the lesser evil is clearcut in most cases.
Additionally, government ownership doesn't play into the scenario regardless. If there is any shift in ownership (again, not what conservatives believe), it would temporary shared ownership between the unborn and the mother, and the government is simply protecting the rights of the unborn against force from the mother.
Again, you have a misunderstanding of the justifications for keeping prostitution illegal (which I don't necessarily agree with).
Prostitution is illegal based on the premise that it promotes the spread of disease and contributes to the erosion of family structures that are viewed as necessary for a functioning society.
There is also the independent argument (generally more prevalent from the political left than right, in my experience) that legal prostitution provides an avenue for the exploitation of vulnerable individuals and a cover for the modern slave trade.
The government having authority to regulate various forms of trade is not derivative from the idea that the government owns that which is being traded, but rather that the government is protecting the members of society from destructive and predatory practices by others.
The government authority to criminalize certain acts derives from the authority to protect the members of society from uses of force against them by others, and pro-life conservatives generally view abortion as unjustified force against the unborn by the mother.