Is abortion support due to 'her body, her right' justified when they will condemn that view for incest as they can claim their body and their right?

[Kiera_Japanese]

I find it super super hypocritical when ladies often say abortion is her right due to it being her body but when incest couples agree to use their bodies that way, they claim it is wrong. If that is wrong, it makes your argument for abortion wrong as you are literally claiming why it is wrong for incest the same as why is it right for abortion. So you must support abortion on other grounds unless you are unwilling to condemn incest.

The sad thing is people will see this as support for incest but intelligent people will see it as poking a hole in bad arguments as you can't literally use the grounding for one argument as wrong but take that same grounding and say it is right for another.

[Hawner]

Those are two different things, as far as I can see. One is the right of the woman to decide what it is done with her body, if she decides to abort or not. The other is about two blood-related people (brother-sister, cousins, you name it) having romantic, sexual relations or both.
Abortion is a tool that allows a woman to interrupt a pregnancy, because she or the fetus is sick and would be dangerous to give birth, because it is the result of rape, she is too young, whatever.
If a girl wants to have sex with her brother, while it is wrong for good reason, she is the one who decides if she wants to do it or not.
The only way both things are linked together is if the incestual couple had sex and the girl wants to abort. Other than that, they are completely unrelated.

[Kiera_Japanese]

But they aren't in the sense that both cases, they choose how they want their bodies to be used. So if you support abortion but condemn incest, you must do so on other grounds that using its their body, their right as the same thing applies to incest.

[Hawner]

As I said, the thing with incest is not that they choose what to do with their bodies. It is unrelated to abortion completely.

[Kiera_Japanese]

Yes but you can't condemn an argument in which you use same principles to support another argument was my point.

[Hawner]

If they are unrelated, they don't have the same principles. Ergo, your assumption is incorrect.

[Kiera_Japanese]

You can't claim it's their body it's their right for abortion but say it's not their right when it is their body for incest. You must use another reason to support it.

[Hawner]

Kiera, for Fuck's sake! Learn to fucking read! I never, NEVER, said it is not their body to do what they want when doing incest. I repeat, NEVER. What I said, and I quote myself, is "If a girl wants to have sex with her brother, while it is wrong for good reason, she is the one who decides if she wants to do it or not". Hopefully you will finally understand.

[jennyPuss]

if you want to create a principle as a moral foundation then you have to accept all the implications. if "my body my choice" is true, on the grounds that because it is my body, then logically i'm the final authority on what i do with that body, then that means people choosing to do OTHER things with their bodies have similar freedoms, because you've laid down the principle that the power of choice rests in the intrinsic fact of ownership of the body.

by that logic, people can get sun tans, tattoos, piercings, they can go for walks, ride bikes, and perform any number of other things with their bodies as long as they aren't hurting someone else.

some people say that it's similar to statutory rape. since a child is unable to consent, if you have sex with someone underage it's rape. in a similar way siblings can't consent.

however, the logic behind that reasoning is false. children can't consent to ANYTHING. children may only do what their guardians permit them to do. children may not even go for a walk without permission. when is the last time you disagreed with a parent's right to refuse their 4 year old to jay-walk? so it is the nature of a child's youth that prevents them from consent, because in the eyes of the law they don't always have the wisdom to make right choices, and sometimes choices have to be made for them.

by contrast, outlawing incest has nothing to do with protecting the perpetrators, but with preserving the State's interests in producing offspring more likely to be productive tax payers. for a long time, it was considered common knowledge that incest produced retarded children or other deformities. with inadequate birth control measures of the day, it was believed that incest would produce an entire new race or caste system of untouchables. people who would be a burden to the State to care for.

since we have many birth control options as well as genetic diagnostics to evaluate the risks, there really is no LOGICAL reason to ban the practice.

now- you can argue the point on moral grounds, but i think the doors to that argument should be closed to those who support killing children before they are born.

[Neko911]

Simple because kids born of incest have problems. That causes high risk for a child. Abortion chooses to end something that isn't a life yet. Incest is playing in a potential child being born from it

[Kiera_Japanese]

What if the incest couple were infertile or one was? Then could you comdemn incest while supporting abortion using their body? But if it is their body, they would have the right to potentially bring in deformed children.

[Kiera_Japanese]

Actually only 25% of incest babies are deformed. 1% of non incest is deformed. While 25 times greater risk, it is still the minority of the time.

genetics.thetech.org/.../genetics-inbreeding

[Neko911]

Your logic is flawed sweetie

[TwoToTooTutu2]

But it "Isn't a life yet"

[Kiera_Japanese]

Not flawed at all. If you use that argument for one thing, you can't deny it for another thing.

[Neko911]

Yes u can lol

[Kiera_Japanese]

Not justifiably. Only hypocritically.

[Kiera_Japanese]

That's like saying it is okay to steal rice and oatmeal if hungry but wrong to steal steak and fries if hungry.

[jennyPuss]

you're trying to argue from a results point of view. what will the said outcome be? --- in the philosophical frame of the question, the outcome is irrelevant. the question is if- by virtue of being owner of your own body, you should have the unilateral right to decide what to do with it. the government and the will of the majority have decided that NO you can't do ANYTHING you want with your own body, simply by virtue of being the owner. you can't have sex with certain people, you can't ingest certain substances, and you can't terminate unborn children in certain locations. so the argument is, if we stand on "my body, my choice" as the justification for legalizing one particular type of behavior, by the sole virtue that the legalization should be permitted because the person is the owner of the body, then why should that logic only apply to killing unborn babies? there are lots of other forbidden things that should be legalized on the virtue of "my body". suicide is illegal. my body. my choice. drugs are illegal. my body. my choice. incest is illegal. my body. my choice. loitering is illegal. my body. my choice. public nudity is illegal. my body. my choice. i'm sure there are other behaviors has well that the government controls what you can do with your body. but the point is that the government, as well as the majority of the people, have decided that the virtue of ownership of your body is not sufficient grounds to have total autonomy. there are states where if a certain number of your family members agree, they can have you incarcerated and put your body in a mental health facility against your will and there's nothing you can do about it. there's a lot of implications dependent on "my body. my choice."

[RickPen]

Oh, there is plenty of hypocrisy for that statement. Not just incestuous relations. Imagine if the baby is born. Her body her choice to have it. Oh look! It's a boy. Cut his penis. His body, her choice.

The argument also fails if the father was a rape victim by the mother. Then he'll also be on the hook for child support, all while having had no say in his body, sexuality, financial future, or care of the baby.

[Kiera_Japanese]

Yep and you forgot if a woman stole sperm from a sperm bank, she can force the man to pay child support because judges are too stupid to realize the unfairness of that.

[RickPen]

They're just following Cardi B's methodology. Just Rob the men.

[lanadelrey25]

I agree with you

[Kiera_Japanese]

Thanks. Even people who support abortion are forced to agree or they know they'd be lying to themselves. 😆

[FriendlyEnigma]

I mean, if someone wants to get an abortion, i'm all for it. If someone wants to fuck their dad, i'm not gonna stop em 😂 it's weird but not my place to intervene

[TwoToTooTutu2]

That is a good point. They really can't argue against it.

[TotallyAlmost]

It's a bogus argument. Ask anyone who claims that position about this scenario. Say they couldn't conceive, and they hired a surrogate to carry their IVF baby to term. Then half way through the surrogate decided to call it off because it's "her body." Then watch the smoke come out of that person's ears as she tries to figure out how to defend her position and this advocate the murder of her own child.

[gandolph3]

apples and oranges

[Kiera_Japanese]

No it isn't. I made a strong correlation. If a person claims their body, then it must apply to both cases.