(no subject)

[feotakahari]

The most I’ve ever pissed people off on the Internet was when I argued against the idea of bodily autonomy as a defense of abortion. I’m fine with abortion, I just don’t believe in bodily autonomy. After all, anti-vaxxers say they have the bodily autonomy to refuse vaccines, and I think they’re full of shit.

Multiple people blocked me over this. One person couldn’t understand how my mind works that I would come to this conclusion.

People who pirate movies because they don’t believe in IP are now so mad at AI art that they’re lobbying the government to make more laws to defend their IP. Frankly, I think more of you should think like I do.

Comments

[cream_and_custard]

I felt very confused reading this at first.

I assume your argument is that the bodily autonomy of a fetus can be disregard for the sake of a pregnant person, just as you think it can be disregard for anti-vaxers for the sake of others health?

If not, can you elaborate on how you think it's a defense for abortion?

[feotakahari]

I guess I phrased that badly. I meant “other people argue in favor of bodily autonomy as a defense of abortion, and I don’t like that argument.” I want other arguments in defense of abortion. As I see it, the burden of proof is required for banning things, so you don’t need that strong of an argument for “we shouldn’t bring down legal punishment on people for doing this.”

[cream_and_custard]

Yeah, I kind of get your sentiment for who's responsible for proof, but I think I disagree pragmatically. I simply don't think it's reasonable to act like pro-choice individuals have no burden to argue our side when there are plenty of people with anti-abortion arguments that people do believe is proof. We shouldn't have to argue it much, but that means nothing to people working against it.

[random_thought_depository]

Nice to see I'm not the only person in our orbit who's pro-choice for "fetuses are clearly not people" reasons instead of "bodily autonomy must be a totally non-negotiable terminal value" reasons.

Don't get me wrong, I think body autonomy should be treated as a very important right, but the arguments for totally divorcing abortion rights from fetal (non)-personhood considerations kind of creep me out honestly. They remind me of the libertarian belief that absolute property rights trump the well-being and survival of others. If an actual sapient person was dependent on my body for survival in approximately the way a fetus is dependent on its host, I would consider myself to have moral obligations toward them, actually. Thankfully that's a completely unrealistic sci fi thought experiment so it's not a problem for pro-choice politics.

I'm not sure how much of this absolute body-autonomist tendency in pro-choice politics is an actual deep expression of people's philosophy and how much is just the product of a "but if we admit this as a legitimate concern even in strictly theoretical terms it might weaken us politically" desire to deny any possible purchase to abortion-prohibitionist arguments.

[feotakahari]

I just think the burden of proof should be required for banning things, not making them legal. I don’t know how I feel about abortion, so I don’t want to legislate what choices other people make about it.

[e_jo_m]

I agree with virtually every aspect of this.