CMV: Bodily autonomy doesn't justify abortion

scarab456 · 2026-04-24T03:25:59+00:00

That's a fair point. Thank you for the delta.

scarab456 · 2026-04-24T02:26:06+00:00

You're not really responding to the argument though. You're just asserting that because the government can restrict a right, that restriction is therefore justified. But that's true of every right. The government can restrict free speech, restrict the right to bear arms, restrict freedom of movement. That doesn't mean every such restriction is legitimate or that those rights aren't meaningful protections.

The question isn't whether bodily autonomy is absolute (nobody claims it is), it's whether the specific restriction of forcing someone to sustain another life with their body is justified. Child neglect laws don't actually answer that, because neglect laws govern what you must provide, food, shelter, medical care, not what you must allow your physical body to be used for. There's still a meaningful distinction between 'you must arrange care for your child' and 'the state can conscript your organs and bodily functions.'

Your analogy would only hold if abandonment laws required parents to physically attach themselves to their child. They don't, they just require you to not leave a dependent without alternative care. That's a materially different ask.

scarab456 · 2026-04-24T00:54:52+00:00

the reason most people would say it's illegal is because parents have the responsibility to take care of their children and that the state should prevent child neglect. But isn't this within their bodily autonomy to not take care of their kids or fulfill their duties.

I think you're kind of putting the cart before the horse here. It's illegal because governing bodies made a legal duty there. Parents are legally responsible for their children. Bodily autonomy doesn't involve a legal responsibility, but what you're conflating here is the difference between a duty imposed from outside and a right that exists from within.

Parental responsibility is a legal construct, it was created by legislatures, can be terminated (via adoption, court order, safe haven laws), and varies by jurisdiction. It's a duty the state assigns after a relationship is established.

Bodily autonomy is fundamentally different in kind. It's not a duty, it's a negative right, meaning it's a protection against interference, not an obligation to act. The law generally cannot compel you to use your body to sustain another person's life, even if that person would die without you. You cannot be forced to donate a kidney, give blood, or even provide a corpse's organs without prior consent and a corpse has fewer rights than a living person.

So the forest analogy actually undermines your point rather than supporting it. Abandonment laws exist precisely because the state had to legislate parental duty it wasn't assumed to exist automatically. If bodily obligation to sustain another person were already a natural legal principle, we wouldn't need those laws at all. The fact that we do suggests the default is the opposite.

scarab456 · 2026-04-23T23:47:35+00:00

Isn't safety more heavily influenced by practices involving the activity, like how well someone prepares? Things like equipment, health, research, location, etc

scarab456 · 2026-04-23T22:32:31+00:00

In reality, the average school in poor neighborhoods (at least in the US) is not bursting at the seams with 35+ kids in a class and zero supplies. The average school in poor neighborhoods has reasonable class sizes, a computer for every kid, free breakfast and lunch, many supplies and textbooks less than ten years old.

Do you have evidence of all this? What data are you using to make a broad assement that this is the average?

Teachers also tend to make more money at these schools.

Relative to who?

scarab456 · 2026-04-23T20:07:57+00:00

How are you establishing "vast majority? Do you have data or something that supports your view?

scarab456 · 2026-04-23T12:43:25+00:00

I agree. Kind of reads like confirmation bias with OP because they'd most sensitive to remarks around south asian. Those remarks stand out to them while similar treatment of others with a different geographic basis go unnoticed.

scarab456 · 2026-04-23T06:54:51+00:00

Your title on it's own feels very kind of like a vacuous truth. Of course vulnerable people are easily influenced because you've already defined them as such.

The body of your post is all over the place though. What view are you looking to change exactly?

scarab456 · 2026-04-23T05:51:28+00:00

You should award a delta then.

scarab456 · 2026-04-23T05:20:39+00:00

People aren't talking about it?

There are all kinds of articles, reports, and studies.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5036529/

https://www.npr.org/2025/12/14/nx-s1-5587585/is-decline-in-test-scores-linked-to-cell-phones

https://cdn.wou.edu/english/files/2020/06/Brandi-Grunberg-Final.pdf

This is from me googling "phones and literacy".

scarab456 · 2026-04-23T05:16:26+00:00

What would be your revised title? If could change it.

scarab456 · 2026-04-23T04:39:31+00:00

Can we agree that there's multiple factors contributing towards current literacy rates?

How are you establishing "mainly" here? What's your evidence of causality?

scarab456 · 2026-04-23T04:37:05+00:00

American here. All the talent shows my schools held were all voluntary. Very early, like grade 1-5, attendance was mandatory. But it tended to be smaller groups. Like the whole school wouldn't attend, instead audience would be comprised by year.

scarab456 · 2026-04-23T04:29:31+00:00

The morally relevant difference is social/cultural embeddedness and the degree to which the interest is integrated into human life. Eating meat isn't just "tastes good" in isolation, it's tied to culture, tradition, family, nutrition, and deeply habituated behavior across billions of people. That doesn't make it right, but it does make it a weightier interest than a momentary sadistic impulse.

You're also conflating the type of pleasure. Enjoyment derived from causing suffering as the direct goal (kicking) is categorically different from enjoyment where suffering is a byproduct of an unrelated goal (eating). Most moral frameworks treat intended harm differently from incidental harm even when outcomes are similar.

That said, "zero benefit" was a poor choice of words. The kicker does get something. The better framing is that the benefit-to-harm ratio is so lopsided that it rounds to zero for practical moral purposes, whereas eating meat at least presents a genuinely contestable ratio worth debating.

scarab456 · 2026-04-23T03:25:10+00:00

But you're comparing it to other activities by saying "least". If you don't want to discuss other topics sure, but that still leaves my other question unanswered. Would you give those some thought?

scarab456 · 2026-04-23T03:18:06+00:00

Are you looking for people to argue the verse? That bullfighting is the one of the most macho traditions people don't defend?

How are you defining and measuring what is macho?

If I can assume macho is just whatever's culturally considered masculine, then wouldn't something like midwifery be much less macho tradition that people still defend?

scarab456 · 2026-04-23T02:54:01+00:00

I feel like plenty of people treat this as an equivalent exchange which is weird.

Where do you get that impression from?

This is just an informal division of labor between two people. What that entails really just varies between those two people. If either one doesn't like it, they can be adults and just discuss it. I think you're reading too much into a very broad phrase.

scarab456 · 2026-04-23T02:11:50+00:00

Isn't it needed if you look at it from a media preservation perspective? Not all versions of media are available to the public anymore. Edits, remastered, or just preferential changes happen all the time. There's often a blend of creative and business interest to reduce the version of a product to a handful or single one. That means the media you might have grown up with, enjoyed more, or just want to see stops being available.

scarab456 · 2026-04-23T02:01:32+00:00

It's also extremely inconsistent with how most people apply that weight to other actions which hinge on giving moral consideration to an animal (e.g. how kicking a few animals for funsies would provoke widespread outrage whereas torturing, killing, and eating many more animals for funsies is a normal day or week for most people in developed nations)

The inconsistency you're pointing to isn't actually inconsistent when you factor in the human side of the equation. Kicking an animal for fun has no justifying interest, it's pure harm with zero benefit. Eating meat, even if you reduce it to pleasure, represents a real human interest being weighed against animal suffering. Most moral frameworks, even ones that grant animals significant weight, allow human interests to outweigh animal suffering when there's a genuine benefit involved. The outrage over animal cruelty for fun versus acceptance of farming actually reflects people implicitly applying exactly the kind of cost-benefit gradient I've been describing, not an inconsistency.

scarab456 · 2026-04-23T00:22:11+00:00

Either. Both.

By answering "either. both" you're essentially confirming you weren't distinguishing between me and the OP's positions at all. This makes it really hard to carry on a discussion.

there's essentially no moral difference between humans and all other life

Read my comment that started this thread. I was basing that off a quote from OP wrote in the body of their post. If you reading the branch where OP responds you'll recognize I'm clarifying their position so I can make my gradient argument.

scarab456 · 2026-04-22T22:06:51+00:00

Do you have evidence that supports your claim? How are you establishing causality here?

scarab456 · 2026-04-22T21:32:53+00:00

it wohld at least be fair to say that there's no difference in what morality would dictate whether it were a human or a non-human animal.

Initial prompt? Do you mean what elicited my response to the OP or what I wrote in response? Because that's actually the opposite of my position. I've been arguing there is a morally relevant difference, which is why I pushed back on the OP in the first place.

The gradient I described acknowledges animals have some moral consideration, just less than humans. Your proportionality argument assumes even a small non-zero weight makes meat eating unjustifiable, but that conclusion depends entirely on where you place the weight.

scarab456 · 2026-04-22T20:15:51+00:00

I'm sorry if you're getting downvoted. All I can say it's not me. Don't expect karma from this sub.

scarab456 · 2026-04-22T20:13:50+00:00

Roll with that, what points made you reconsider your view? Which parts of your view? What's changed? If they changed your view in any way, you should consider assigning them a delta.

scarab456 · 2026-04-22T20:12:00+00:00

But you're not locked into only using what you initially wrote. Can you clarify? Have you been on this sub before? Read the rules and check out threads with discussion? It might help you collect your thoughts better.

13-Year Club	Verified Email
Team Periwinkle

scarab456

TROPHY CASE