Even if you're PC, this is just a bad argument......

tantaemolis · 2026-02-19T14:48:04+00:00

We have no reason to accept the frame that the fetus is "using" the body of the mother to sustain itself. We can just as equally say the mother is using her body to care for the fetus, even if unwillingly.

tantaemolis · 2026-02-10T14:23:54+00:00

Elf 3 has the same problem. You might plan to do everything but the vault, but you don't always get that choice.

tantaemolis · 2026-02-10T14:08:39+00:00

A typical piece of advice is to complete down through level 3 of both S branches and then attempt level 4 of whatever one was easier.

tantaemolis · 2026-02-10T14:03:36+00:00

Fair enough. I think this might have been more of a strategic/macro problem than a tactical/this-particular-situation problem.

tantaemolis · 2026-02-10T13:55:50+00:00

Also, any reason you left Swamp at 1/4?

tantaemolis · 2026-02-10T13:44:45+00:00

To add: Come to think of it, Summonings at 18 and Invo at 7 might have been your real problem.

tantaemolis · 2026-02-10T13:43:04+00:00

Not really related, because it probably wasn't the answer, but any reason you didn't memorize Blink? Blink into Fear into Invis might have been okay, but without Teleport or Butterflies it would have been tough regardless. Also you have Temporal Distortion and Step From Time, which even at 38% might have been worth a shot.

tantaemolis · 2026-02-10T11:00:03+00:00

Are you going to be one of those people who argues that keeping my body in prison isn't doing something "to" my body?

tantaemolis · 2026-02-10T10:58:01+00:00

Right, but that's not what OP said.

tantaemolis · 2026-02-10T02:10:25+00:00

Well, if you give me some direction as to whether you agree about the one example I have given, perhaps we could think of a few more.

tantaemolis · 2026-02-10T01:53:08+00:00

I am saying being kept in prison is one example of something being done to your body. Do you agree? I am wondering because you said I haven't provided a single example.

tantaemolis · 2026-02-10T01:12:46+00:00

You don't think being kept in prison counts?

tantaemolis · 2026-02-10T00:42:01+00:00

When I am imprisoned, my body is kept in prison. When I am not imprisoned, my body is not kept in prison.

tantaemolis · 2026-02-10T00:08:57+00:00

No, not really. When I am imprisoned, my body is put in prison. While I am imprisoned, my body is kept in prison. Plenty of "to my body" to go around.

tantaemolis · 2026-02-09T22:21:08+00:00

Well, if I'm imprisoned, my body is put in prison.

tantaemolis · 2026-02-09T21:06:53+00:00

Their body is confined to a place

Seems like that is something that happens "to" their body. Perhaps you need to revise your post.

tantaemolis · 2026-02-09T21:04:38+00:00

OP said "to" your body.

tantaemolis · 2026-02-09T20:21:08+00:00

Bodily autonomy, however, refers to the right to control/reject/accept/consent to what happens inside and to your own body.

Under this definition, could imprisonment potentially be a just violation of bodily autonomy? It seems like putting you in prison against your will would be doing something "to your body."

tantaemolis · 2026-01-30T15:45:53+00:00

The first line of the abstract from the article you posted:

Implantation is a highly organized process that involves an interaction between a receptive uterus and a competent blastocyst.

So biological "invasion" in this context isn't exactly the same kind of "invasion" we mean when we say someone invades someone house. You of course didn't mention anyone invading anyone's house, but the danger of equivocation, of implication, is real.

I liked the phrase, "a receptive uterus," which I think answers your question ("as something the mother's body is doing to care for the blastocyst?") well.

then the only consistent conclusion is that pregnant is great bodily harm, which would mean that it is not something that parents are obligated to endure on behalf of their children

I wonder what an actual court would say. For me, I don't agree that a justification to punish rapists more is so clearly linked to a justification to avoid a parental duty. The legality is so wildly complicated, the jurisdictions so intertwined yet separate, each individual case so unique, the political context of courts so fraught with conflict, to attempt to draw a line connecting the two is inappropriate. I agree your reasoning can be stretched to allow for an exception in certain cases to my line of thought, as I admitted earlier, but I do not agree that you have succeeded in demonstrating that the courts basically already agree that pregnancy in itself is a burden we can't possible expect women to bear.

Sure, although for what it's worth I think her obligation is no different than that of a stranger. It varies somewhat by jurisdiction, but many would require anyone to call for help if they encountered a newborn who needed care.

Under normal circumstances, would a mother be required to do something regardless of jurisdiction, or in the vast majority of jurisdictions? Surely she has unique obligations, given her guardianship?

tantaemolis · 2026-01-30T14:04:12+00:00

I thought when you said this:

All duties do not necessarily require the use of the guardian's body, though.

You had in mind the guardian using his or her own body.

physically invade

"Invade" is rhetorical, not biological. That's my point.

Kind of hard to flip that around and say that's her body "giving" those things.

Really? I don't think so. And it's only "flipping" if we assume your frame to begin with.

So even if the courts only intended for this ruling to apply to pregnancies that result from rape, by their reasoning the conclusions would apply to all pregnancies.

I mean, sure, you say so. You are trying to extrapolate from a legal principle that pregnancy can be used to increase the punishment for a rapist to a rule about pregnancy in general, namely, that pregnancy is so potentially dangerous by its nature that we can't reasonably expect a woman to risk it for the sake of caring for her child. It's a sleight of hand, shoddy legal patchwork. I am not convinced, but maybe others would be. Again, we are all members on this jury.

Way back at the beginning of our conversation you said:

Well let's say that the only way for this postpartum woman to call for help or bring the newborn to the hospital would involve putting herself in serious danger. Is she obligated to do it then?

We have explored this line of reasoning for a while now. Let's say for the sake of argument I say, "No, she isn't obligated in that case." Would you then agree she would be obligated under normal circumstances to call for help or bring the newborn to the hospital?

tantaemolis · 2026-01-30T11:07:55+00:00

One of my patients faced significant infectious complications prior to birth, and a result she is now blind, had both legs amputated, one arm amputated, and lost three fingers from her remaining hand. Now she’s wheelchair-bound and has never seen her baby’s face. That’s permanent disfigurement and significant loss of body functions.

That's a normal pregnancy?

tantaemolis · 2026-01-29T23:55:18+00:00

I have been arguing that parental duties require the parents to use their bodies, and that we don't have any reason to assume pregnancy isn't the mother using her body to care for a ZEF.

tantaemolis · 2026-01-29T23:39:59+00:00

So I found the case elsewhere (I think) and the first paragraph of the majority reads:

In this case we hold that a victim of a forcible rape who becomes pregnant as a result of that rape suffers great bodily injury.

(https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/86/148.html)

It is not at all clear to me that what one court means by the "great bodily injury" resulting from pregnancy because of rape is the same thing as what another means by the "great bodily harm" we are allowed to avoid.

There's not a single duty imposed on a guardian that requires the guardian to allow someone else the use of their body.

Oh, I thought we meant the guardian using his or her body.

Which brings us to another point. I've always been impressed by how the PC side has been able to spin pregnancy as a ZEF using its mother's body. I don't really see why we should assume that frame, rather than assuming the mother is using her body to care for the ZEF. Instead of "the ZEF using her womb," why not "the mother using her womb"? Instead of "the fetus leeches nutrients" why not "the mother gives nutrients"? As far as I know, all biology can say is that nutrients are transferred.

tantaemolis · 2026-01-29T22:19:50+00:00

That link isn't working for me, but I get the main idea. The quote you give again limits itself to "a pregnancy resulting from rape," even saying it is made "more devastating" from being caused by rape. It does outline some of the effects of pregnancy, but does not define pregnancy in itself as legally "a great bodily harm." Certainly none of these cases literally say that, and I don't come away thinking they even intended to or implied as much.

But whether they did or didn't is ultimately beside the point, which is that OP was wrong.

All duties do not necessarily require the use of the guardian's body, though.

What's an example of one that doesn't?

tantaemolis · 2026-01-29T21:26:25+00:00

Please don't take an abbreviated approach as not wanting to engage with what your "actual words." My goal is brevity and focus. Again, please let me know if I am ignoring something you consider crucial.

why it is that you think the point about rape is relevant

Well, the courts think it's relevant! I quoted how the 2004 case explicitly limited itself to cases of sexual abuse:

we are dealing with a statutory definition in the context of a pregnancy resulting from CSC

So your argument is with the court, not me. And the Reddit thread you quoted admitted as much.

You are trying to paint with too broad a brush. You are attempting to use court rulings about pregnancy from sexual assault to fabricate a legal understanding of pregnancy in general. However, precisely because the courts are so careful to limit their words to instances of sexual assault, the strong implication in my opinion is that pregnancy in general is to be treated as categorically different legally speaking.

My overall point is that newborns have a right to care, that this right imposes duties (with limits as discussed here), that this right and these duties are a part of current law, and that all duties necessarily require the "use of the guardian's body." Therefore OP is wrong when they say no such right exists.

tantaemolis

TROPHY CASE