Abortion Debate (US)

[The Hammer]

@Wildswanderer since you seem to NOT understand the meaning of "start your own thread" on this topic.

Here you go.

------

So.... Why is it that a cadaver has more rights to its body than a woman does in the US?

"Currently, the United States (US) uses the “donation model”, a consent model for deceased organ recovery that prioritizes the rights of the individual (or of the surrogate decision maker) over the needs of society by requiring authorization or explicit consent prior to deceased organ and tissue recovery."

Ethics of deceased organ donor recovery - OPTN.

Even if I am actively dying and desperately in need of an organ transplant. I cannot receive one without the corpse's explicit consent prior to death?

Why is it that if I need a blood transfusion because I'm sick and dying, I cannot compel you (assuming it's a match) to give me your blood to save my life.

So why can't a woman decide whether or not she wants to carry a baby to term?

Why is it not her decision to choose whether or not she is physically, financially and emotionally capable of raising a healthy child?

A fetus has no fundamental "right" to my wife's body, for its own usage... without her expressed consent. And no having sex does not imply consent was given.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Wildswanderer since you seem to NOT understand the meaning of "start your own thread" on this topic.

Here you go.

------

So.... Why is it that a cadaver has more rights to its body than a woman does in the US?

"Currently, the United States (US) uses the “donation model”, a consent model for deceased organ recovery that prioritizes the rights of the individual (or of the surrogate decision maker) over the needs of society by requiring authorization or explicit consent prior to deceased organ and tissue recovery."

Ethics of deceased organ donor recovery - OPTN.

Even if I am actively dying and desperately in need of an organ transplant. I cannot receive one without the corpse's explicit consent prior to death?

Why is it that if I need a blood transfusion because I'm sick and dying, I cannot compel you (assuming it's a match) to give me your blood to save my life.

So why can't a woman decide whether or not she wants to carry a baby to term?

Why is it not her decision to choose whether or not she is physically, financially and emotionally capable of raising a healthy child?

A fetus has no fundamental "right" to my wife's body, for its own usage... without her expressed consent. And no having sex does not imply consent was given.

Because women are second class citizens.

Checkmate atheist!

 

[Quintessence]

I mean, it is her decision.

Regardless of what laws the patriarchy wants to impose, women and others who can become pregnant will can and will have abortions, medically induced and otherwise. Biology is messy, and doesn't care what human laws want to impose on it. All humans laws do is unnecessarily complicate an already complicated situation and demonize the process of pregnancy and all those involved in it. Which, naturally, is part of the point - the patriarchy hates anything that isn't a cisgender (usually white) male.

Forced birth doesn't seem like it was ever really about babies, but about punishing women for simply existing. Kind of like how much of this crowd also wants to punish transgender people for existing, non-heterosexuals for existing, or people of color for existing. Gods forbid that the cisgender heterosexual white man has to actually work for their lot in life instead of riding off the coattails of historically engrained socioeconomic privileges. Now they've got to actually compete with all these other historically marginalized groups for jobs and attention. Egads!

If you're used to things being easy and coming your way, the loss of that is hard. It really is. I've had some of that in my life too. So I'm a bit I'm sympathetic because multiculturalism and diversity really is a threat to entitlement and privilege. A response to this of "yeah, we're going to take away others rights again to put them back where they belong" though? Yeah, nah. Maybe man up instead; isn't that what they're all about? Pull up by thee bootstraps? And when that doesn't work (because if often won't - life is complicated like that) maybe listen to the "socialists" a bit when they talk about the value of social welfare? Universal basic income anyone? Government funded health care for all? Government funded education for all to remake your skill set for a new life when you need a plan B? Yeah?

Also, why do we never talk about just... removing the uterus from the human body entirely? Conflict solved. No babies gestated in human organisms, no conflict of interest. Bam, done. Artificial wombs. Make it standard, forced birthers!

 

[The Hammer]

Also, why do we never talk about just... removing the uterus from the human body entirely? Conflict solved. No babies gestated in human organisms, no conflict of interest. Bam, done. Artificial wombs. Make it standard, forced birthers!

You had me until the end. Artificial wombs just seems creepy. Not gonna lie.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

@Wildswanderer since you seem to NOT understand the meaning of "start your own thread" on this topic.

Here you go.

------

So.... Why is it that a cadaver has more rights to its body than a woman does in the US?

"Currently, the United States (US) uses the “donation model”, a consent model for deceased organ recovery that prioritizes the rights of the individual (or of the surrogate decision maker) over the needs of society by requiring authorization or explicit consent prior to deceased organ and tissue recovery."

Ethics of deceased organ donor recovery - OPTN.

Even if I am actively dying and desperately in need of an organ transplant. I cannot receive one without the corpse's explicit consent prior to death?

Why is it that if I need a blood transfusion because I'm sick and dying, I cannot compel you (assuming it's a match) to give me your blood to save my life.

So why can't a woman decide whether or not she wants to carry a baby to term?

Why is it not her decision to choose whether or not she is physically, financially and emotionally capable of raising a healthy child?

A fetus has no fundamental "right" to my wife's body, for its own usage... without her expressed consent. And no having sex does not imply consent was given.

To do even deeper. There are no fundamental individual rights. They are social constructs.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... since you seem to NOT understand the meaning of "start your own thread" on this topic. Here you go.

And since you do not seem to understand or care that yet another thread on the topic will achieve nothing, here we are.

 

[Kenny]

@Wildswanderer since you seem to NOT understand the meaning of "start your own thread" on this topic.

Here you go.

------

So.... Why is it that a cadaver has more rights to its body than a woman does in the US?

"Currently, the United States (US) uses the “donation model”, a consent model for deceased organ recovery that prioritizes the rights of the individual (or of the surrogate decision maker) over the needs of society by requiring authorization or explicit consent prior to deceased organ and tissue recovery."

Ethics of deceased organ donor recovery - OPTN.

Even if I am actively dying and desperately in need of an organ transplant. I cannot receive one without the corpse's explicit consent prior to death?

Why is it that if I need a blood transfusion because I'm sick and dying, I cannot compel you (assuming it's a match) to give me your blood to save my life.

So why can't a woman decide whether or not she wants to carry a baby to term?

Why is it not her decision to choose whether or not she is physically, financially and emotionally capable of raising a healthy child?

A fetus has no fundamental "right" to my wife's body, for its own usage... without her expressed consent. And no having sex does not imply consent was given.

I know that we have hashed this out multiple times, but using your analogy:

"Even if I am actively dying and desperately in need of an organ transplant. I cannot receive one without the corpse's explicit consent prior to death?

Why is it that if I need a blood transfusion because I'm sick and dying, I cannot compel you (assuming it's a match) to give me your blood to save my life."

And yet we will compel the baby and eliminate her/his blood and his organs and eliminate its life for the carriers personal benefit. Without the baby's consent.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I know that we have hashed this out multiple times, but using your analogy:

"Even if I am actively dying and desperately in need of an organ transplant. I cannot receive one without the corpse's explicit consent prior to death?

Why is it that if I need a blood transfusion because I'm sick and dying, I cannot compel you (assuming it's a match) to give me your blood to save my life."

And yet we will compel the baby and eliminate her/his blood and his organs and eliminate its life for her personal benefit. Without the baby's consent.

No person has the right to occupy another's body. The person being occupied has the right to "evict" the other person.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I know that we have hashed this out multiple times, but using your analogy:

"Even if I am actively dying and desperately in need of an organ transplant. I cannot receive one without the corpse's explicit consent prior to death?

Why is it that if I need a blood transfusion because I'm sick and dying, I cannot compel you (assuming it's a match) to give me your blood to save my life."

And yet we will compel the baby and eliminate her/his blood and his organs and eliminate its life for her personal benefit. Without the baby's consent.

There are no objective standards for this. You have your subjective one and I have another. As long as you in effect treat yours as objective and everybody elses as wrong, it will continue.
So here it is:
Person 1: I am right and you are wrong.
Person 2: No, I am right and you are wong.
Person 3: What about a compromise.

 

[Kenny]

No person has the right to occupy another's body. The person being occupied has the right to "evict" the other person.

That didn't match what I said. You are on a different wavelength.

 

[Kenny]

There are no objective standards for this. You have your subjective one and I have another. As long as you in effect treat yours as objective and everybody elses as wrong, it will continue.
So here it is:
Person 1: I am right and you are wrong.
Person 2: No, I am right and you are wong.
Person 3: What about a compromise.

Person 3 - why invite a person to enter into your house if you don't want them there in the first place?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Person 3 - why invite a person to enter into your house if you don't want them there in the first place?

I reject your framing as relevant for all cases. It works for some, but not others. That is the compromise. You control all houses as they are yours.
You are the only relevant house, right? Well, no. But neither am I.

 

[Kenny]

I reject your framing as relevant for all cases. It works for some, but not others. That is the compromise. You control all houses as they are yours.
You are the only relevant house, right? Well, no. But neither am I.

I believe the OP was talking generally... why move the goal post?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That didn't match what I said. You are on a different wavelength.

I'm talking about the actual rights of bodily autonomy and bodily security. Since you seem not to understand these rights, yes: we may be on different "wavelengths."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Person 3 - why invite a person to enter into your house if you don't want them there in the first place?

There's that rapist logic again.

 

[Kenny]

I'm talking about the actual rights of bodily autonomy and bodily security. Since you seem not to understand these rights, yes: we may be on different "wavelengths."

Actually, I am talking about bodily autonomy. What part didn't you understand with what I said?

 

[Kenny]

There's that rapist logic again.

I don't think that was the OP.

You must be on a different wavelength.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Actually, I am talking about bodily autonomy.

About your understanding of it, at least.

What part didn't you understand with what I said?

The part where you denied the bodily autonomy of the pregnant person.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't think that was the OP.

You must be on a different wavelength.

No, that was you, drawing an analogy of a pregnant person having "invite[d] a person to enter into your house."

Just as consent to, say, going on a date isn't consent to sex, consent to sex isn't consent to pregnancy.

Do you deny the importance of consent across the board, or do you only deny it for women?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I believe the OP was talking generally... why move the goal post?

Because it is not your goal post nor mine. As long as your are the owner of all goal posts, this will continue.