Trigger warning: Prolife with exceptions? Abortion debate.

[shmogie]

IMO, it would be extremely unethical to impose restrictions on anyone else's access to abortion.

IMO, the only ethical so-called "pro-life" positions are:
- not choosing to get an abortion yourself, and
- building more and better alternatives that reduce abortion rates by getting pregnant peolle to freely choose options besides abortion.

Ethics and the law are two different things. Killing a human is murder. The inane findings in roe v. wade making the murder of an unborn person legal is a blot on cogent legal reasoning. It was and is a ******* decision that gave the Warren court cover in usurping the power of the states as defined in the Constitution. It will be overturned because it is a legal embarrassment.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I think birth control is the answer. The solution is not killing people. The question should be "what is the fetus" before we ask that we can kill it. I believe the fetus is a baby with rights unless the mother was raped, or medical need.

Do you remember the days before Women's Suffrage? We men believed (and we still do sometimes) that women just could not handle making decisions or that we men could make the right decisions for them? That shows a weakness in how we view the law. We tend to overstate its usefulness and our own ability to use it wisely. The law must be put back into its position of humility. Law is a practice not a science and should be treated as such.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why?

Because one of the most fundamental rights is the right to bodily security and bodily autonomy. Continuous consent is needed for one person to use the body of another; denying the right to end a pregnancy denies these fundamental rights just as much as, say, forced medical testing or forced organ donation.

You are a human being, conscious, and entirely capable of expressing your will to live. Despite this, if you needed your mother's organs, tissue or fluids to live and she refused, you would still have no right to them even if you would surely die without them... because your mother - like every person - has the right to bodily security.

... and your mother still had this right even when you were a fetus.

 

[YeshuaRedeemed]

Because one of the most fundamental rights is the right to bodily security and bodily autonomy. Continuous consent is needed for one person to use the body of another; denying the right to end a pregnancy denies these fundamental rights just as much as, say, forced medical testing or forced organ donation.

You are a human being, conscious, and entirely capable of expressing your will to live. Despite this, if you needed your mother's organs, tissue or fluids to live and she refused, you would still have no right to them even if you would surely die without them... because your mother - like every person - has the right to bodily security.

... and your mother still had this right even when you were a fetus.

I have the right to live. I was not part of my mother's body.

 

[YeshuaRedeemed]

Do you remember the days before Women's Suffrage? We men believed (and we still do sometimes) that women just could not handle making decisions or that we men could make the right decisions for them? That shows a weakness in how we view the law. We tend to overstate its usefulness and our own ability to use it wisely. The law must be put back into its position of humility. Law is a practice not a science and should be treated as such.

Yawn. If you don't want a baby, just used birth control or have your tubes removed. I did, and I feel great.

 

[YeshuaRedeemed]

https://www.liveactionnews.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Your-body-someone-elses-body-.jpg

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have the right to live. I was not part of my mother's body.

But you were using her body. Your mother would have had the right, if she had chosen, to decide to stop providing her body for your use.

 

[YeshuaRedeemed]

But you were using her body. Your mother would have had the right, if she had chosen, to decide to stop providing her body for your use.

I don't care. I have the right to live. If you don't want a baby, use birth control or have your tubes removed, LOL. Abortion is murder.

 

[Quintessence]

so I take it you're pro genocide??

Um... no? Why would someone who values biodiversity - human and non-human - want to target some particular manifestation of diversity for elimination?

Dealing with human overpopulation isn't simple. I'm for birth-rate solutions which happen by:

• Promoting Women's Rights. Where women are empowered, control over reproductive decisions follows. It means women are no longer viewed as baby making machines and can make decisions for themselves and their own lives.
• Promoting Family Planning. Being pregnant should never be accidental or unwanted. Following up from women's rights, the idea of raising a family should be viewed as voluntary and something to make preparations for before undergoing.
• Promoting Access to Birth Control. In order for women to successfully make their own reproductive decisions, they also need access to things like birth control. Any and all forms of contraception should be provided at no or low cost. This includes abortion.
• Remove Obstacles to Adoption. Currently, one has to wallow through a bunch of legal red tape on top of having a big wad of cash to adopt a child that already exists on this planet. Such obstacles need to be revisited and largely removed.

There are a few more elements than those, but those are common sense ones that are somewhat feasible in the current political climates of the globe.

The other aspects of working through overpopulation of a species are death-rate solutions, but there are very few of those I'd support. It's not particularly relevant to the abortion issue, though, so no need to go into that here.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't care. I have the right to live.

Does that still apply today?

If you needed a kidney, your mother was your only match, and she didn't want to give it up, do you think you should be able to get it against her will?

Does your right to life trump her bodily security today? If it doesn't, what do you think caused you to lose rights when you were born?

 

[YeshuaRedeemed]

Does that still apply today?

If you needed a kidney, your mother was your only match, and she didn't want to give it up, do you think you should be able to get it against her will?

Does your right to life trump her bodily security today? If it doesn't, what do you think caused you to lose rights when you were born?

This is my body, I have the right to live.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is my body, I have the right to live.

Is that a "yes - I have the right to my mother's kidney?"

 

[YeshuaRedeemed]

Is that a "yes - I have the right to my mother's kidney?"

Why don't I have the right to live? That IS what you are saying.

 

[columbus]

But you were using her body. Your mother would have had the right, if she had chosen, to decide to stop providing her body for your use.

I disagree.
Pregnancy is a unique circumstance. Unless you are talking about rape or incompetence or something, the parents chose to put another human being in the dire predicament of needing a gestation period to survive. And only one person in the world can provide that.
Similarly, the father owes her a substantial degree of support while she is pregnant and the child afterwards.

Tom

 

[YeshuaRedeemed]

I disagree.
Pregnancy is a unique circumstance. Unless you are talking about rape or incompetence or something, the parents chose to put another human being in the dire predicament of needing a gestation period to survive. And only one person in the world can provide that.
Similarly, the father owes her a substantial degree of support while she is pregnant and the child afterwards.

Tom

Thank God for you. I agree.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why don't I have the right to live? That IS what you are saying.

Your right to live is secondary to everybody else's bodily security. This is the consistent principle in the laws of my country and I'd bet yours as well: if you don't consent to let someone else use your body, then they aren't allowed to use it, period.

This even applies to dead bodies: if you decide that you don't want to be an organ donor, then it doesn't matter how many people your organs will save; they'll all be buried with you.

We treat the right to bodily security of a corpse as more important than the right to life of any number of people.

... so when you say that the right to life of a fetus should be more important than the bodily security of the woman, what you're really saying us that a pregnant woman should not have the rights we even grant to the dead.

 

[columbus]

If you needed a kidney, your mother was your only match, and she didn't want to give it up, do you think you should be able to get it against her will?

Yes, if she caused the condition deliberately and was the only possible match.
That is such an unlikely event that there is no reason to address it legally. Procreation, on the other hand, is a pretty common and well understood concept.
Tom

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I disagree.
Pregnancy is a unique circumstance. Unless you are talking about rape or incompetence or something, the parents chose to put another human being in the dire predicament of needing a gestation period to survive. And only one person in the world can provide that.

That fits the situation I described: an adult's only match for a life-saving kidney is their mother. There are cases where death without the use of the body of another can be just as certain as that a fetus will be terminated in an abortion, nut we still say that bodily security overrides all other concerns.

 

[PureX]

The problem is that your being "pro-life" still doesn't justify denying a mother the right to decide for herself what will happen inside her own body. The problem is not that the "life" isn't life, or that it isn't a human life. The problem is that it is not autonomous. You want to assign the right of existential autonomy to something that is not autonomous.

 

[YeshuaRedeemed]

Your right to live is secondary to everybody else's bodily security. This is the consistent principle in the laws of my country and I'd bet yours as well: if you don't consent to let someone else use your body, then they aren't allowed to use it, period.

This even applies to dead bodies: if you decide that you don't want to be an organ donor, then it doesn't matter how many people your organs will save; they'll all be buried with you.

We treat the right to bodily security of a corpse as more important than the right to life of any number of people.

... so when you say that the right to life of a fetus should be more important than the bodily security of the woman, what you're really saying us that a pregnant woman should not have the rights we even grant to the dead.

It is sexist and wrong to say women need abortion to avoid being mothers. I had my tubes removed to avoid motherhood, so as a strong A woman, I feel completely disrespected by the liberal abortion lobby. You say a lot about bodily security and I agree, but what about the baby's body and security. Women may not have balls, but we sure as Hell act like it. We are strong and tough. With the right support, most pregnant mothers can safely give birth. You have the right to live, DON'T let anyone tell you otherwise. Love you.