FWIW, I have heard 30-40 mg/day is pretty solid. Perhaps go with the lower and see how that goes.
I have taken 40 mg/day (my tabs were 40 mg tabs, so I just split them). I found that dose to be pretty good, and would feel my muscles contract hard while lifting.
I went looking for some info on this. Do you have a study you can share?
I discussed this with some people in my field. It seems most people in my field think (and they are factually correct) most people are too dumb (not in an insulting way, as in ânot able to understand things above a certain complexityâ) to be given that kind of responsibility. In my opinion this is not a valid argument as even if someone is stupid, you canât dictate him how to live his life if heâs an adult.
Then thereâs the problem with socialized medicine. If someone fucks up his health with drugs, everybody pays for his fault. (Not yet in the US, but it doesnât look good for you fatties over there (I loved bill burrs first comment when he came to Europe âYou guys are pretty fat too!â))
Then thereâs the problem with education. People canât educate themselves on drugs if they are not able to understand some basic logic or lack basic education. We see it here every day. So many AAS users inject shit and then educate themselves when shit goes wrong.
Iâm of the same opinion as you but thereâs certainly problems with our approach. With liberty there always comes an insane amount of responsibility. Tragically I see less and less people who want to handle it.
Iâd love to go through this with you as it is a really interesting discussion. On a large scale itâs actually one of the biggest conflict points between left and right and middle in our era.
Iâm of the opinion that we should start with all possible liberties, and then limit some actions for good reasons. Good reasons to me include negatively impacting others. There are some issues with this approach, like drunk driving for example as that act along doesnât impact others (drunk crashing does though). I think with that we could get into there is a reasonable probability of crashing, so we prohibit it. I donât see that issue with access to drugs. We should prohibit doing actions that have a high probability of harm (driving under the influence), but not the drug access. IMO if all drugs were legal, I donât think we would have a pandemic of say heroin use. I think the user group would stay about the same, and perhaps go down due to availability of substitute less harmful drugs. I think overdose deaths would go down as product quality is a big driver of overdose death, and product quality would likely be much more consistent.
Advocating drugs being legal gets a lot of scoffs though, so I donât bring it up all that often.
Agreed. Along with less disease spread by needle sharing.
My view is if alcohol and cigarettes are legal, after extensive evidence that they cause harm, then every mind-altering substance should be
While I agree with you, I donât like the argument of if alcohol and cigarettes are legal⊠then these drugs should be legal. It makes an assumption that alcohol and cigarettes being legal is correct, which some donât agree with. Then you would be on the hook to show that those things should be legal. I would rather keep the burden on those who oppose drug legalization to show that they should be illegal, which is hard to do if they buy into the idea that we should only limit liberties for good reasons (which almost all agree with).
Good point
I donât think you are correct here.
got abandoned a long time ago. The US is one of the last forts of true liberty and everything points to the US ending up like Europe where every liberty is limited for no reason.
Yesterday the courts in a part of Germany decided that the curfew orders from 8 pm to 5 am are not adequate anymore (as in every restriction to basic liberties needs justification and the measures must be adequate). Then the president of the part of Germany said TODAY that he will just make a curfew from 9 pm to 5 am because thatâs less restrictive and therefore ok. Cases are at a country wide low there. The Germans arenât even as bad as the UK when in comes to restrictions of basic liberties. And if I understood @unreal24278 correct, Aussie too. America wonât stand the pressure long, in my opinion. Hate-Speech laws as a way to curb freedom of speech, big tech firms cracking down on opinions they donât agree with. We see it happening in real time. Once a right is gone, itâs gone. It doesnât come back. Restrictions only get more and more. And people are cheering it on, not standing against it in your country. Iâm not trying to be condescending, I always loved the US, Iâm scared it will become a second Europe.
Perhaps I am wrong. I think in discussion, most people would agree that liberty should only be limited if there is a good reason to do so. Perhaps they donât really agree with that in practice (cognitive dissidence), but disagreeing with that stance seems like a difficult position to take IMO.
I do think there is something to be said for the way people think, and I think you are getting at that. I have heard people say many times âwhy should weed be legalized?â. That is often an unintentional attempt at shifting the onus to show it should be legalized on the pro legalization individual. I would then point out that we didnât make our laws by legalizing things we can do, but prohibited things hopefully for good reasons, and that I donât see any good reason for the prohibition of weed. I would then challenge them to give me a good reason to prohibit it. I havenât heard a good, consistent reason yet.
A lot of people here really did not like the restrictions. I donât think they actually go against my philosophy on liberties. Prohibiting someone from going out without a mask isnât a limiting of liberties without a good reason. There is a good reason in that the action negatively impacts others, or has a high probability of doing so. Now I think some of it was a bit illogical, but I could support restricting liberties in cases similar to Covid, but likely to a bit lesser extent.
It is ironic to me that many libertarians (I bring this up, as this group, IME, has a lot of anti maskers) with their âDonât tread on meâ flags, donât understand that their liberties end at the point they impact others (I thought this was a big part of libertarianism). As a side, I think many who claim to be libertarian are closet Republicans (who at least recently donât seem to mind authoritarian measures as long as they agree with the party decreeing them). This isnât meant as a blanket statement. There certainly are logically consistent libertarians / conservatives.
I am only for these laws if they are against speech that incites violence (perhaps slander / libel if it meets a set standard).
This one is a tough nut to crack for me. In the US, a corporation has corporate personhood rights. I am not sure I agree with that, but if we are going with the companies have rights similar to a person, then they should be allowed to ignore some opinions the same way a person does. My understanding around these laws is limited (very possible I am not understanding these laws correctly, and I am not saying these laws are necessarily correct).
I would certainly prefer that these companies allow nearly all speech as long is it doesnât get into the realm of likely causing harm to others (and not just hurt feelings), or is slander / libel. I also think if one has the right to say what they want, then an individual should be able to say they are an idiot, or cancel them (and in the US a company is a lot like an individual by law).
Rant done. Please ignore terrible grammar.
Exactly thatâs my point; it isnât. Iâm wholeheartedly agreeing with this standard. It is easy to not do it. Security always stands in contrast to liberties and the case for more security gets made every day and the majority of people are willing to pay liberty for security. The problem is that without liberty there wonât be security. The US just voted all chambers of government for the big government party, socialized health care, free college, hate speech laws to apparently protect vulnerable people, more regulation in every aspect of life. It is not difficult to not believe in this principle and the argument for it becomes weaker and weaker in the eyes of the majority of people. (Iâm not saying republicans werenât spending cash like mad. Also big government republicans are on the rise. Im saying the libertarian mindset is vanishing)
These are already law. The new laws in discussion go way beyond that.
I have a good one I think. Wide spread weed use in developing adults (14-22) would lead to a massive increase in cases of psychosis, a condition that will stifle their lives. This population is not mature enough to regulate their own use responsibly. Weed being legal would not only lead to higher consumption in adults but (definitely in the long run) to higher consumption in children, leading to severe problems for many thousands of young adults. I must say, Iâm of the opinion that making something illegal does drive down demand.
I think we shouldnât discuss this here as it gets longer and longer, but you can tell me if you think itâs a good or bad one.
I think herein lies the problem. The high probability or even A probability is not given in a lot of circumstances where these rules now apply. Data doesnât support wearing a mask while walking your dog for example. It doesnât make sense either. A curfew also isnât supported by data. Thereâs many examples. (Rules are different for everyone probably as they are locally different.) I can support restricting liberties for pandemic prevention but only and really only to the extent that we
Either donât have the data yet for whatâs good but it makes logical sense
or the data clearly indicates it.
In many many cases this is not so. Many COVID policies get made on political grounds and this in my opinion should be illegal. (In Germany said law of the adequacy of such rules would prevent that, but to a way too low extent) I think the burden of proof must lay on the law makers who curb individual rights to justify the measures. As soon as itâs not objectively justifiable anymore, it should be abandoned. (LA lockdown for 9 months anyone?)
In Germany 60% of Germany were for an increase in lockdown measures when lockdown measures already were really harsh. What does that mean? Well, an increase in measures! Somebody wants these votes. That all the new rules didnât make any sense and really; they didnât (you canât drive to your partner after 8 pm for example, was then changed again after 3 weeks) was not of interest. It was more rules to have more rules. That would directly contradict this:
I know the way private cooperations are treated in the US and I think thatâs good. Problems arise on many other fronts at the moment but thatâs a topic for many other days.
I think we should cut this short now. Iâm eager to hear your response. After that I think we stop derailing this thread 
I have comments, but Iâm on mobile now. Itâs just too much to write for me. @Chris_Colucci could you move this to a off topic or pwi sub?
Depends on what constitutes âcivil libertiesâ. Some might argue the majority of Europe is better in this regard. America is home to arguably the highest rate of incarceration per capita within the developed world. Laws revolving around AAS in the USA are actually some of the strictest in the world. Granted probable cause is typically required if your premise is to be searched, whereas in Aus/other countries âno-knock warrantsâ and baseless searches are starting to gain traction.
If you were to ask a woman residing in a very conservative state within the USA âwhich country values civil liberties to a greater extent, the USA or Australia/most of Europeâ; her answer might be Aus/Europe. At the very least Aus/most of Europe provides access to abortion, and unlike the USA the concept isnât even a hotly debated topic here, itâs just a given. Iâd hypothesise this is a byproduct of a lack of societal religious influence.
Depending on what/which civil liberties you value more the USA may not be the best place to talk up. The country is more/less remarkably societally conservative in comparison to Aus/Europe. Plenty of European countries have a little bit of a nanny state complex, but itâs a far cry from Australia whose federal government/parliment; in all honesty probably has waaaayyy too much time on their hands. Bike helmet laws, banning kites on beaches, massive fines for going over 3km/hr over the speed limit (enforced), needing to wait 5 years to get your full lisence after you start driving etc (initiative is literally zero deaths on the road per year. Until they reach this impossible number increasingly draconian measures will be implemented etc).
Iâm all for universal healthcare, in the USA public healthcare is so broken some have to pay 50$ for a dose of insulin. Iâd argue many arenât particularly educated re the chemicals they introduce into their bodies. Had a stance been taken prioritising harm minimisation and had actual, unbiased public education been implemented from the start Iâd argue perhaps we could take the approach of âyou pay for it, you brought this on yourselfâ under certain specific circumstances.
It should also be noted those who fuck up their bodies with excessive drug use tend to have underlying pathologies of which havenât been dealt with. Depression/mental health ailments, low socioeconomic status, lack of education and other environmental factors play a large role as to why people turn to hard drugs or excessive drinking, smoking etc. I donât think itâs humane to tell the unmedicated, manic, bipolar individual âitâs your faultâ for going on a coke binge and having a heart attack as a result. Itâs about context, and generally those who get hooked on hard drugs arenât a full box of chocolates to begin with. Furthermore, it typically isnât the individuals fault as to why they arenât a âfull box of chocolatesâ.
However under the frameworks by which cannabis has been legalised within the USA/other countries, data generally points to a stagnation; or even a decrease in the frequency of children/adolescents using cannabis. The allure drops to an extent when the product is no longer considered a from of rebellion.
The use of cannabis within the 18-21 age range is already so common, arguably equatible with the prevalence of drinking alcohol within many social circles.
I donât believe there is a solidified, substantial case for criminalising the use/possession of cannabis (or many other substances for that matter). On the other end of the spectrum, legalisation/decriminalisation ought to be enacted under a regulatory framework of which could mitigate downfalls/risks associated with legalisation. Though personally I donât believe legalisation would lead to a public health crisis developing, we have that with alcohol; yet weâve still manage to deal with the ramifications associated with alcohol abuse without incurring societal collapse. Booze is one of the more toxic/harmful substances in both an acute and long term context that we have at our disposal; two wrongs donât inherently make a right though it backs the notion âif society can handle alcohol we can probably handle cannabisâ.
I donât like double standards, hypcrisy and legislature based upon perceived morality and ignorance as opposed to scientifically backed rationale. Our current policies and generalised public attitudes harboured by primarily older generations within this realm reek of the former.
We are not talking about the degree of penalty for different crimes. That is a whole other topic.
Also a different topic as I donât see a right to aborting a child as a civil liberty as it is the highest ârightâ on the list of rights with externalities. I think gernany handles arbortion quite well. Here, it is completely illegal but up to 3 months it doesnât get prosecuted. Also any advertisement for aborting a child is illegal. Thereâs nearly no discussion here (besides in far far left circles) because people generally agree that abortion is a bad thing but it sometimes may be necessary so a doctor can perform it in the first 3 months (I think 3 months is a little long as the CNS is already developed too much). In America this discussion is completely out of hand. People either argue that you canât do it ever, or they argue that itâs an inherent good and you can do it up to 9 months. I think if one of these positions must be chosen, the first one is morally right, but none of these positions must be chosen.
That are examples that fit well into the discussion. These are all ridiculous especially since the population density is so much lower in Aussie. In Germany the state has a new thing when it comes to driving, instead of giving you a maximally allowed speed limit, they dictate you what number to drive where. Thereâs literally not 100 m without a speed limit sign aside from the autobahn. They put the speed limit so low, that you drive at the limit which changes every 100 yards all the time.
I donât think one can equate the too. Yes booze is acutely more toxic but I have yet to hear of someone drinking once or twice and suffering from psychosis. With cannabis this is a real possibility and not uncommon. Also, people donât drink every day especially young kids as drinking impacts the next day very negatively, while many kids here, in France and in the Netherlands smoke dope every day or several days of the week because they think there are no consequences or are ignorant about them. A few months later, grades are down, depression sets in and they go into psychotherapy.
I think cannabis gets a way too good rep for being harmless when it absolutely isnât. If adults want to do it, I donât care, but as long as it is not possible to protect the youth effectively, I think wife spread legalization of selling it is a mistake. Use doesnât go down when itâs legalized (see Netherlands).
I think for consistency if you legalize cannabis, you must argue for legalization of other psychedelics, like LSD, psilocybin and DMT. The risks are equatable, the quasi dependence is higher in cannabis. Thatâs why mnben said, one must not argue for legalization but against forbidding it.
Actually Iâm very biased on this as Iâve seen at least 10 lives destroyed by cannabis. It is a kind of cognitive dissonance as I would be in favor of legalization of many but the harshest of drugs (heroin) at least the use of them. I think your stance on AAS meets mine on recreational drugs. Use should not be criminal but selling should be. I also think Germany has the worst laws regarding this. Melatonin was only Rx until 2017.
What constitutes as âpsychosisâ. Alcohol related psychosis is a well known/documented condition, I can attest to having seen it firsthand. Both as a result of acute intake and prolonged abuse. Psychosocial impairment, delusions of grandeur, violent/antisocial behaviour, destruction of property, paranoia and more.
Iâve also seen cannabis mediated acute psychosis before (mimicking schizo-affective symptomatology). Iâve seen this present as the individual hearing voices and/or talking to people who donât exist, extreme paranoia and the inability for one to discern whereabouts. That being said, for the hundreds + of times Iâve seen people smoke cannabis (even to the point of near incapacitation) Iâve only seen a psychotic reaction twice.
Iâve seen near fatal reactions to alcohol abuse, Iâve seen fights, risky sexual activity, paranoia (more times than I can count), severe and sudden mood swings and irrational anger. These behaviours are typically the result of a once off, and it appears certain individuals are merely more predisposed to these negative reactions. I donât drink often, though I have my fair share of âdrunkâ experiences. Iâve never blacked out, gotten into fights, become irrationally emotional, paranoid or hostile. Some people simply donât react well to alcohol akin to how some donât react well to cannabis.
Whatâs more, from a chronic standpoint; chronic abuse of ethyl alcohol will (typically) lead to more severe deleterious health outcomes in terms of physical health/wellbeing.
It doesnât tend to increase either. Whatâs more, cannabis isnât legal in the Netherlands. I like what the Netherlands have done with the âtolerance policyâ but at the same time a lack of government regulation has allowed criminal syndicates to maintain a large grip on the trade.
If cannabis use is to stagnate, increase or decrease regardless of legislation (as appears to be the case), Iâd prefer societal ramifications donât encompass a thriving black market, mass incarceration or criminal records being handed out associated with mere possession/use.
The Netherlands doesnât have a relatively high rate of use per capita. France/the UK have higher rates of use, as do many European countries of which have far harsher penalties associated with use. Australia also has one of the highest rates of use per capita, itâs very common amongst university students in particular.
Iâm fine with this, though Iâd argue the risk for acute psychosis associated with the use of psychedelics is (probably) higher. These substances can take naive people for a ride, particularly those who feel affixed to the confines of reality and/or who have a requirement, a need to constantly feel in control of their surroundings. An interesting legal framework would be akin to the way Uruguay was legalised cannabis. Uruguay sells regulated portions of cannabis to residents through licensed pharmacies. If they could do this with psychedelics, MDMA (media sensationalism aside, the substance isnât particularly dangerous if used sparsely. To note Iâve never taken this, so no personal bias is present), cannabis etc Iâd be all for it. Background checks, a discussion over potential interactions with individualistic medical conditions and medications taken etc.
Alcohol may be a lot of fun, but it was a huge mistake to market it as an acceptable past time available to the masses, with various events encouraging the mass consumption of heavy quantities (nightclubs etc). Iâd personally prefer if cannabis replaced alcohol in the generations to come, I may not personally be the biggest fan but I legitimately believe all cause hospitalisations (relating to drug abuse) would drop considerably if cannabis was the ânew alcoholâ.
I donât believe itâs quasi dependence. Cannabis can be habit forming and regular, heavy use appears to result in withdrawal symptoms, both physical and psychological for heavy users who suddenly cease use. Whatâs more the long term neurological ramifications are still somewhat unknown. The perpetuated stoner stereotypes donât appear to hold ground within reality aside from when relating to the most heavy of users. Cannabis isnât harmless, but following legislation (in any sense) I donât think the sky would fall. Many countries have had the substance effectively decriminalised for decades with no societal detriment being apparent.
As have I. Destroyed is a stretch, though Iâve seen chronic, very heavy use completely and potentially permanently change the demeanours of adolescents (and even adults). Though this encompasses a fraction of those who use. The same goes with booze, say 95% manage to keep use in control, 5%; due to genetic variances, environmental factors or whatever simply canât regulate use. The congitive dissonance you speak is most certainly a consequence following heavy, prolonged use for some/many; and cannabis certainly isnât harmless.
That being said, the ramifications Iâve seen from harder substances/incurred upon others associated with alcoholism, opiate addiction, methamphetamine use, heavy cocaine use etc FAAAAARRRR surpass the âhazy, foggy, unproductive stonerâ consequences associated with potheads. At least they arenât winding up dead in their 20s-30sâŠ
I advocate for either
What Iâm not for is a large scale market dominated by large corperations as is unfolding in the USA.
Ramifications associated with current era approaches include mass incarceration/criminal penalties resulting in a high rate of re-offending/progrssion to more malignant criminal activity, high rates of contaminated (more lethal/dangerous) substances, thriving criminal syndicates of which are also involved in seriously nefarious shit like human trafficking, unregulated use by youth, excess resources being used to combat an un-winnable war (like Australian police spending billions per year to eradicate cannabis crops) and more.
Even AAS, some AAS users wind up dead in their 20âs/30âs. The risks associated with steroid use are far , far, far more severe than the risks associated with cannabis use.
In the benefit/detriment, pro/con list I tend to favour a different approach as to what has been currently trialled, an approach that has failed drastically for decades.
I apologise if this message is disorganised/incoherent (it is). Itâs difficult for me to type out these large posts on my phone.
Iâm not talking about acute. I mean induction of incurable psychosis, like people that are schizophrenic.
The stoner type is the problem. Doesnât happen with alcohol. Nearly no young adult (14-22) is alcohol dependent, I know none. I know plenty of cannabis dependents.
Edit: incurable as in only symptom resolution through antipsychotic medication
Are you sure? When I was in high school plenty of adolescents drank heavily, typically once but sometimes multiple times per week. Not dependence per se, but problematic risky use and a dependence on drinking in order to interact with others within various social environments.
Without talking about people I know in detail I happened to know one teenager who progressed to drinking 6-10 beers per day and another who drank daily (in excess of what guidelines deem to be safe). Both canât/wonât stop and the drinking has had detrimental psychosocial ramifications.
This is more/less textbook alcoholism
As to cannabis dependency. As with all substances, the majority of adolescents/young adults (17-21 age range) I know/knew who used did so within reason (i.e not frequently).
Environmental variables play a huge role, as does the age of initiation (younger=riskier). If thereâs a kid smoking cannabis daily, step back and ask âwhy is this kid doing this?â Is he trying to escape from the confines of reality (as typically seems to be the case). If so, why? Can you remove this variable, would it change the behaviour of the adolescent? If I recall the majority of those who become dependent on cannabis have underlying psychiatric pathology, I believe itâs being used as a coping mechanism, a means of self medication.
Theyâre all bad news. My beliefs/approach isnât to advocate for use, rather to find an approach that mitigates societal harm mediated from the use/distribution of psychoactive drugs whilst simultaneously negatively impacting cartels and criminal syndicates.
Iâd be okay with the flat out controlled legalisation of many vices, provided the burden towards public healthcare isnât equatible to say⊠TobaccoâŠ
Well, I think this thread is pretty much done, so I donât see much issue getting into philosophy, etc. here.
I donât think the studies done in Colorado (first legal state) have shown this. To the contrary, they have seen youth use go down. Possibly has to do with it now being less rebellious as unreal has said, but I donât actually know the reasons.
I also have a tough time with the arguments that certain people canât handle it, so we should prohibit it. There are lots of things like this that we donât forbid (gambling, unhealthy food, smoking, drinkingâŠ). I think one would sound pretty authoritarian / puritanical if they wanted to forbid drinking because some canât handle it.
I also just donât think it is the governments place to mandate morality. I think they should make laws to prevent others from infringing upon anotherâs rights. That is about it for me when it comes to prohibiting actions.
I am not saying they got it all right (far from it), just that I could see justification to infringe upon certain rights, to protect anotherâs rights. The whole your right to swing your arms ends at my nose.
Luckily in the US we have the constitution. This sets rights for individuals, and prevents some popular ideas that would infringe upon otherâs rights from being passed into law. Or if they are passed, they will likely get overturned in court.
Agree here.
Having some sort of rights set would really help here. The US has this and I think it is a really good thing.
I would not classify it as a right to an abortion, but as the right to bodily autonomy (which has been deemed a right by interpretation of the Bill of Rights, by the SCOTUS in Roe v. Wade). Basically, a person has sole rights to their own body (unless incarcerated). A person cannot be forced to donate any part of their body to help someone else. A parent canât be forced to donate a kidney, blood or any of their body to save an already existing child (I bring this up to show that bodily autonomy rights always come before right to life). In the same way, a mother canât be forced to give her body to support an unborn child. IMO, this is a cold calculated argument, but solid. I donât think abortion is nice, but I canât consistently think one has the rights to their own body in every other situation (even when the right to life is also at stake), but not in motherhood.
If you donât believe in rights to bodily autonomy, I think you could be consistent in being anti-abortion. I donât think too many could support the idea of not having bodily autonomy rights if the ramifications were explained to them (forced organ donations for example).
I agree.
Definitely not, but Iâd like to see this in action. The US government increasingly tries to force down a perceived morality on its people.
Also fine by me, the question on every issue is what in that case constitutes âinfringing upon anotherâs rightsâ.
I agree. I think I made clear where I draw the line. At unreasonable laws that donât protect the safety of others but infringe upon individual rights.
It has this, Germany has it too. Doesnât mean that everybody in your state believes in these inalienable rights, far from it.
Dicy decision. The Supreme Court of the US also oversteps its mandate and boundaries consistently, they are not a infallible authority when it comes to their decisions. Hence all the democrats and republicans who fight for who sits on the court, because the SCOTUS indeed became a political tool by now, nothing more or less. Not discrediting your logical argument, but the authority of the SCOTUS as an argument.
I would agree with your whole statement on this. But the crux of the matter is, what constitutes a Life. Does it begin at conception when new DNA is formed? Then the mother would kill a human being which would be in conflict with the right to bodily autonomy. For example, in Germany there is a law that when you see a car crash and you drive by it, youâve committed a crime as you didnât help. (Donât know how to translate the exact name of the law) I donât know if there is something like that in America, but that would infringe upon bodily autonomy as you must take the risk of getting hurt to prevent someone from dying (AIDS, HCV,âŠ). Also, giving birth is not more dangerous for a woman than an abortion, so sheâs not giving something away like a kidney. I actually think the crux is how you define life. In my opinion it is when a good amount of neural connections are formed and working, around the 8-10 week mark. At that point in my opinion you are killing a human being by aborting, which would obviously be a crime and I think it would take priority over bodily autonomy. Thatâs just my opinion but I think itâs consistent with other standards.
I think thatâs not the main point. The main point is, which right has higher priority, the life of the unborn or the right to bodily autonomy.
I have agreed with your response up to here. Here I would like to clarify that I agree with you, and that in a logical argument, what the SCOTUS says should not influence a decision on who is right or wrong. Just talking legality at that point.
IMO, it is bodily autonomy. If you really pry into most people they will admit that bodily autonomy is a higher right. All of our laws currently prioritize bodily autonomy (in regards to using anotherâs body to sustain or save anotherâs life) over right to life (at least in first world countries). It would be untenable to prioritize right to life over bodily autonomy (I donât think your example of helping a crashed car survivor is giving up bodily autonomy for right of life is the same as a mother who lets a child use her body, because it does not require any of the bodyâs internal mechanisms to do so).
I donât think this is relevant. I donât think so because I believe bodily autonomy always trumps right to life. It doesnât matter if we call it a human, fetus, embryo. I know this is cold, but I think it is consistent. I think many pro lifers are inconsistent in their thinking, and are making special pleading arguments around the unborn.
I donât think abortion should kill the unborn after the unborn is viable to live. Only removal of the unborn from the mother in that situation. I think the mother has those rights (despite my feelings that they are cruel actions).
What do you think of this as a compromise on abortion. I think it is a logically consistent thing to do. That is the abortion procedure never should involve killing of the unborn, but allows a woman to remove the unborn at any period of pregnancy. Some unborn will not be mature enough to survive, and some will. No harm will be done, no killing will be done. Death will occur, but that is separate from killing. This is just a thought experiment. I think in many cases it is far more humane to kill the unborn in an abortion procedure. But does this logically make sense? Is it consistent?