You come up with a solid example, and I’ll respond.

Convenient trick, that.

piny:

Personally, I thought the completely incomprehensible part was when you linked to a lefty blog that proceeded to do just that.

Ah, looking back, the statement was somewhat contradictory. I wanted to point out that a leftist can make a strong, utilitarian argument for legal abortion. I was giving praise when it was due.

I can’t see why people need the fortress of absolute principle to retreat into , because I think the utilitarian argument holds up. Critics of utilitarism like to proclaim that utilitarism is opposed to liberty, that it leads to compulsory social conservative morality (if they are leftist) or communism (if they are rightist), or murder of the disabled (yeah, thanks a lot for that one, Peter Singer). What they miss is the fact that countries that have much invidual liberty for citizens usually do far better than countries that don’t (Cold War, anyone?).

“My body, my choice!”, and “you can’t force me!” all make good slogans, but they are also easily used by other people. Choice For Men, Conscience Clause. (FYI, I considered them both to be morally repugnant, irresponsible movements, altough the fact that pharmacies are private in the U.S makes the situation bit more complicated.)

But then again, I’m no absolutist, so I don’t need to invent new tricks, or PoMo leftist theories, such as certain power dynamic concerns, (that have both little empirical truth, and little emotional appeal to wider public) to justify why I support taxation (why is that one a responsibility, when they don’t exist, Magis? Exception does not prove the rule…[common good, IMO]), conscription (I probably wouldn’t if not for certain geographical realities, though. Or perhaps only in theory if it is truly a necessary evil), and requiring fathers to do their damn duty towards their children (and mothers, yes, it is against invidual liberty. Too bad.), or requiring doctors to do their job or seek a non-clinical specialty.

feminist use of principles that they don’t apparently endorse

You come up with a solid example, and I’ll respond.

If you don’t believe in the principle of bodily autonomy, then I’m talking with the wrong feminist about this question.

And if you have some nuanced or unanticipated view, then I’d like to know that so I can frame my argument appropriately to what you believe.

I’m suspicious of your motives.

Please answer the question.

Incorrect. I conceded that Niamh’s point had facial merit. That doesn’t mean she’s right.

An “autonomy” which does not include economic rights to the subject matter is incomplete.

However, if you don’t like this example, we can certainly come up with others.

Howver, before I invest any more time, I would like you to answer my question.

Do you believe in the principle of bodily autonomy?

The subject is the feminist justification of abortion rights by invoking principles, and failure to uphold those principles in other areas.

And you gave a bad example, as was pointed out to you over and over. And over.

The principles behind bodily autonomy do not fail if monetary compensation for body parts is prohibited — as Niamh pointed out and you were forced to concede. As kate pointed out. As I pointed out.

And you failed to answer any of us with a reason as to why payment or lack thereof made a difference to bodily autonomy when no one can prevent you from donating body parts except on sound medical grounds (i.e., you only have the one kidney, so you can’t give it away because you’ll die) and, more importantly, no one can violate your bodily autonomy by forcing you to donate your body parts. Not a single reason.

You have been engaged on the substance of your rather roundabout hypothetical, and it has fallen apart on its merits.

So you need to come up with some other example of an area where feminists fail to uphold principles behind reproductive rights in other areas.