[Bobboau]

The moment where ... it has been in the toaster for long enough to pop out

exactly

[Mikes]

At which point does bread become toast?

The moment where you have found that it has been in the toaster for long enough to pop out and slather sweet butter on top of it, seeing it melt and seep into the wheat as you pour honey all over it and mixing two glorious things together to create this massively delicious creation on your plate

Bread never becomes toast unless someone intends it to become toast.

[zookeeper]

My big deal with being pro-choice comes from the concept of bodily autonomy.

Well, pretty much no one thinks no one's bodily autonomy should never be infringed upon; pro-lifers don't demand abolishment of bodily autonomy, only for there to be X+1 exceptions to it as opposed to pro-choicers' X exceptions.

[Bobboau]

give me a few examples from this set called X.

[Flipside]

At which point does bread become toast?

The moment where you have found that it has been in the toaster for long enough to pop out and slather sweet butter on top of it, seeing it melt and seep into the wheat as you pour honey all over it and mixing two glorious things together to create this massively delicious creation on your plate

Bread never becomes toast unless someone intends it to become toast.

It can happen, but I must admit there is not nearly the angst involved in finding out you are going to have completely unexpected toast...

[Scotty]

My big deal with being pro-choice comes from the concept of bodily autonomy.

Well, pretty much no one thinks no one's bodily autonomy should never be infringed upon; pro-lifers don't demand abolishment of bodily autonomy, only for there to be X+1 exceptions to it as opposed to pro-choicers' X exceptions.

See, the major difference between pro-life and pro-choice is that pro-life is inherently about infringing on personal autonomy and liberty.  Pro-choice is not inherently about supporting all abortions.  That's what it comes down to in my perspective. 

[SpardaSon21]

And from my perspective the fetus (as soon as it is an actual fetus and not just a cluster of cells that might someday maybe become a human) has as much right to its own bodily autonomy as its mother does with her own body.

[Phantom Hoover]

My big deal with being pro-choice comes from the concept of bodily autonomy.

This is reasonably similar to the trolley problem. For a lot of people the distinction of whether you're taking a 'positive action' to end a life or simply allowing it to end through inaction is a big deal. If you pull the switch to send the trolley from an unoccupied track to one with someone on it you're guilty of murder. If you see it set to hit someone and do nothing you're perhaps guilty of manslaughter through negligence.

[Kobrar44]

And from my perspective the fetus (as soon as it is an actual fetus and not just a cluster of cells that might someday maybe become a human) has as much right to its own bodily autonomy as its mother does with her own body.

Don't make me tell you that every living thing is a lump of cells. Before you have enough cells to specialise them, you need to build up their count. Iron -> tool logic does not apply here. Also, you may not call it a person but not calling it a human isn't correct.

If you have the sperm and the egg on their own ... how wouldn't it be just as much of a "crime" to prevent them from meeting? After all, they would become the same baby that you propose above.

Sperm and egg haven't started anything yet and it's trivial [hence all the unsafe sex that does not lead to pregnancy]. That first cell, ever since its genes are established, is a start. It can fail on its own. But its a start. And it lasts dozens of years if it succeeds.

See, the major difference between pro-life and pro-choice is that pro-life is inherently about infringing on personal autonomy and liberty.  Pro-choice is not inherently about supporting all abortions.  That's what it comes down to in my perspective. 

I think this statement isn't true nor relevant.

The moment where ... it has been in the toaster for long enough to pop out

exactly

That is why we call toast a toast and baby a baby. When you speak of a toast you have a specifically served slice of bread in mind. It is purely semantic.

[Scotty]

And from my perspective the fetus (as soon as it is an actual fetus and not just a cluster of cells that might someday maybe become a human) has as much right to its own bodily autonomy as its mother does with her own body.

Of course!

However, that bodily autonomy does not extend to its mother's uterus.  An abortion doesn't do a damn thing about the fetus's bodily autonomy, and suggesting otherwise indicates ignorance of the subject or a fairly disingenuous assertion on what bodily autonomy implies.

[zookeeper]

give me a few examples from this set called X.

Preventing suicide or self-maiming, manual cavity searches, mandatory blood tests.

Well, pretty much no one thinks no one's bodily autonomy should never be infringed upon; pro-lifers don't demand abolishment of bodily autonomy, only for there to be X+1 exceptions to it as opposed to pro-choicers' X exceptions.

See, the major difference between pro-life and pro-choice is that pro-life is inherently about infringing on personal autonomy and liberty.  Pro-choice is not inherently about supporting all abortions.  That's what it comes down to in my perspective.

Well, yes, but similarly pro-guncontrol is inherently about curtailing people's rights, whereas pro-gunrights is not inherently about supporting everyone having guns. Either side of many if not most issues can, if you want to, be portrayed as being for/against something that's in principle a good/bad thing.

And since someone will probably point out that gun control is not about curtailing people's rights to own guns but about protecting other people's rights to not get shot with them, I'll note that similarly a pro-lifer will say that they're not about curtailing bodily autonomy, it's about protecting everyone's right to life.

My point is that abstract principles as arguments or justification are pretty shaky because pretty much whatever your cause is, you can always come up with nice-sounding abstract principle that the cause defends or the opposition opposes.

[Luis Dias]

I just find it weird that the left, so enamored and preoccupied with altruism as a source for morality and ethics (as opposed to selfishness and greed) can then give rise to such reasonings as "bodily autonomy", which merely translates to me as "I don' give a damn if a small body inside of me's gonna die due to the actions I do to mah own body, I do with mah own body whatevah I want". It's a complete lack of any sense of respect, of dignity, of humillity towards other people and beings. Yes, of course that a woman's body belongs to her, everyone knows this and this is why this is such a controversial debate. But to simply wipe out the other part's right of existence entirely, IDK, it just disgusts me.

I just cannot follow the reasonings of who gives me this ridiculous body autonomy analogy nor can I swallow all this rethoric of the "parasite". It's as mental as the other conservative side, who cannot see past the sacredness of the soul of the poor, poor group of 100 cells that are about to be murdered like the Jews in the Holocaust. Jesus ****ing Christ, is it any *wonder* that all of these rethorical images and analogies are *all* stemming from that place of wretchedness and hyper mega polarized non-debate kluster****ness that is the mental institution called the "United States of America"?

[Phantom Hoover]

It's not like it's an American problem, Ireland's situation with abortion is far, far worse but it doesn't get much press, and there are plenty of similar countries. At least in America you actually have those rights.

[Luis Dias]

The rethorical polarization in Ireland is far worse? Well. I can totally see that.

[SpardaSon21]

And from my perspective the fetus (as soon as it is an actual fetus and not just a cluster of cells that might someday maybe become a human) has as much right to its own bodily autonomy as its mother does with her own body.

Of course!

However, that bodily autonomy does not extend to its mother's uterus.  An abortion doesn't do a damn thing about the fetus's bodily autonomy, and suggesting otherwise indicates ignorance of the subject or a fairly disingenuous assertion on what bodily autonomy implies.

If your choice to bodily autonomy is quite possibly ending someone else's life, how is that not affecting their own rights to bodily autonomy?  You're making the decision for them for their body to stop functioning.

[Luis Dias]

As I said, it's just this neato lawyer-ish pseudo-ethical manner to say "because **** you that's why"

[AdmiralRalwood]

And from my perspective the fetus (as soon as it is an actual fetus and not just a cluster of cells that might someday maybe become a human) has as much right to its own bodily autonomy as its mother does with her own body.

Of course!

However, that bodily autonomy does not extend to its mother's uterus.  An abortion doesn't do a damn thing about the fetus's bodily autonomy, and suggesting otherwise indicates ignorance of the subject or a fairly disingenuous assertion on what bodily autonomy implies.

If your choice to bodily autonomy is quite possibly ending someone else's life, how is that not affecting their own rights to bodily autonomy?  You're making the decision for them for their body to stop functioning.

Even if you assume that a fetus has rights to bodily autonomy, then it's for the same reason it's not a violation of someone's bodily autonomy to refuse to donate a kidney to them, even if they will die without it.

You are making the decision not to support their bodily functions with your body. Even if this will inevitably result in their bodily functions ceasing, refusing to donate a kidney is not murder.

[Phantom Hoover]

My big deal with being pro-choice comes from the concept of bodily autonomy.

This is reasonably similar to the trolley problem. For a lot of people the distinction of whether you're taking a 'positive action' to end a life or simply allowing it to end through inaction is a big deal. If you pull the switch to send the trolley from an unoccupied track to one with someone on it you're guilty of murder. If you see it set to hit someone and do nothing you're perhaps guilty of manslaughter through negligence.

Not everyone sees it the way you do.

[Droid803]

My big deal with being pro-choice comes from the concept of bodily autonomy.

This is reasonably similar to the trolley problem. For a lot of people the distinction of whether you're taking a 'positive action' to end a life or simply allowing it to end through inaction is a big deal. If you pull the switch to send the trolley from an unoccupied track to one with someone on it you're guilty of murder. If you see it set to hit someone and do nothing you're perhaps guilty of manslaughter through negligence.

Not everyone sees it the way you do.

So if the person needing the transplant was going to cut your kidney out from you themselves and you stopped them, that would be murder since you took a positive action to protect your bodily autonomy that will inevitably end a life?

Analogies. So helpful, yet so unhelpful.

[Luis Dias]

Again Droid, you're using an analogy that has very different traits to it and try to make it equivalent to the case at hand, when any cursury look at the various trolley examples brought up by Hoover, you would immediately recognize that small changes in the details of the dillemas end up in completely different moral decisions on part of most humans.

This means that there's more to it than the wide blanket "Body autonomy". It's more detailed than that. It's richer than that.