- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
I realize that's what you meant but that still isn't what you said, sorry. I summarized your position as I understood it and gave you a chance to tell me I wasn't correctly understanding you, and you didn't. You told me I was right in assuming these contracts would render a woman unable to obtain an abortion. Either you admit that's not what you meant, and this ends with me saying that's a bad idea but that I can't currently think of a good reason to make it illegal, or you maintain that's what you meant and we're back to talking about whether or not people can sign away their bodies.
Also, you said yourself we're not operating on how contracts currently work; if we were, pretty sure yours would not be binding and nothing would happen to a violator.
Yes, clearly. You're being dishonest by trying to pretend you didn't say a woman would not be able to get an abortion in these cases. Not 'be allowed, without consequence' - 'be able.' I asked if it was the case that a woman would not be able to get an abortion and you yes, that was the case. If I asked if cars were legally allowed to speed, then asked if cars were actually able to speed, I'd get different answers.
If that's not actually what you meant, fine. But correct yourself instead of acting like it's your audience's problem for not guessing that you meant something different than what you said. There's a reason I made an effort to clarify your stance first.
Seriously? You're not able to formulate a distinction between a brain dead person being taken off life support, and rape? I hope this is a red herring that we can just ditch here and I won't actually have to explain this.
The very first question I asked was if these contracts would mean a woman would be prevented from getting a legal abortion. You did not say, 'No, she can get one but will have to pay damages.' You said, 'Yes.' That clearly states a procedure for legally ensuring that the terms of the contract are met, not just exacting punishment if they're not. The latter is weird to me but less objectionable, and if that's what you envisioned, then you did not communicate that.
Disagreeing with the terms of these contract being legally enforced has zero impact on the people who want to write a contract and follow it.
Conception requires two people and both parties should consent because they're both involved in the process.
Incubation only requires one person and the only party who's consent should matter is the one doing the incubating. I said this before and you didn't really answer; even if you have partial ownership of something, you don't own whatever is holding it.
Someone choosing death for themselves doesn't in any way violate that statement. This is not even comparable; we are talking about situations where Person A wants to usurp Person B's bodily autonomy, and Person B is against it when it comes time for it to actually happen; if we substitute the administration of death for the usurping of bodily autonomy, it would be called murder, not euthanasia.
As well, it is not about ownership.
'Livelihood of a fetus' - we're talking about contracts that could be drafted and signed years before a fetus even exists, aren't we? What about a man and a woman who sign a contract to get pregnant and have a kid x years, and the man is the one who changes his mind when the time's up? Couldn't he be subject to forced electroejaculation and made responsible for a child he didn't even consent to create? Wouldn't these contracts also obligate a woman to get an abortion if she signed a contract to do so, even if she decided she wanted the baby? There's much more involved in this than the livelihood of the fetus, not to mention the livelihood of a fetus depends on the mother's body and so changes hands depending on who is allowed to own the mother's body.
Removing someone's ability to consistently decide what happens to their own body, and giving it to someone else, is certainly an issue of ownership. You have a degree of control over the things you own, and less or no control over the things you don't own, at the discretion of the person who does own it. Transferring control of one person's body to another person, which is exactly what you're talking about, necessitates a shift in ownership, at least for awhile.
what would be the point in a contract?
I already said I think contracts concerning a person's reproductive future are ridiculous and pointless. People can draft them and sign them to their heart's content but legal ramifications for breaking the terms are a bad idea.
It is about changing your mind because in your scenario, that's exactly what would cause problems.
Yes, I am against contracts unless it's void for whatever reasons the owner of the body in question chooses, even if they aren't specifically outlined. I think signing a contract to farm out the future use of your body to someone else is ridiculous and pointless. No amount of legal obligation should transfer ownership of an autonomous adult's body to someone else.
Only idiots would change their minds about giving up control of their body?