Seen on Facebook; An extraordinarily well written response to an anti-choice post

[The Traveler]

176. Really? I dispute that on ethical grounds.

Seriously. As men, we invest relatively little in terms of body changes (zero), risk (zero), post birth health issues, and even calories (pregnancy is a high energy process, biologically speaking.) In every measurable way the woman's investment and exposure outweighs the man's by orders of magnitude. With so little actual, measurable investment in the process, it is unclear to me why men should be awarded the decision making role you advocate. What is your logical and ethical basis for that assertion?

While upthread you claim the FB response that is the topic of discussion is logically unsound, I actually don't see that at all. The principle of bodily autonomy is deep rooted in our culture and system of law ... and for very good reason! Don't like the blood transfusion hypothetical? OK. Organ transplant. Or better, bone marrow transplant. I could go on. I can definitely construct a realistic scenario in which some person's life ends unless another person agrees to a violation of their body. Once that is established the subsequent discussion appears logically and ethically inescapable.

So I have questions for you.

1) What is the logical fallacy? I scanned over this thread but did not see where you identified it.
2) Explain why I should think men have a significant or overriding voice in this decision? That rationale needs to establish an extraordinary basis, for you are asking for an extraordinary amount of power over another individual.
3) If the principle of body autonomy is violable in this instance, are there other instances in which it can be ethically violated? If so, what are they? What are the guiding ethical principles by which we can make that determination?

Note that arguments that include "I believe" or "I feel" cannot be given great weight in a discussion of this sort. You may BELIEVE or FEEL very strongly about the matter, but others will have equally strong beliefs and feelings that are opposed to your own. How can we fairly choose between those contending feelings and beliefs? You are asking for extraordinary power over another individual. In a free society, that power cannot be granted without a clear ethical basis upon which the vast majority of citizens agree, and without further establishing that the ethics of the matter compels the deployment of that power. (An example of such a basis is the principle of body autonomy, for which you demand exception.) In other words, ethical principles are quite often in conflict, and we cannot resolve that conflict based on your beliefs or feelings alone.

Trav