Overturning Roe V Wade

[Trailblazer]

Why assume she doesn't? The only person who knows what's best for her is her. And perhaps her doctor.

I think you missed my point. What is best for her.
What she thinks is best for her is what she wants and what people want is not necessarily the right thing to do.
The doctor only knows what is best for her physical body but that is not what we are talking about.

Right. So fetuses don't know that they'll never become a person then.

No, but how is that relevant?

So souls are being put into the fetuses that will be aborted naturally as well, or ... ?

Souls are not being put into fetuses. According to my beliefs, the human soul comes into being at the time of conception. If a soul was aborted naturally that is not a choice so the woman is not responsible for that, since it was out of her control.

 

[Kenny]

Maybe they should be free.

Why not?

It's a cost saving measure as compared to all the abortions. Not to mention we will have let live our next scientist, doctor, businessman et al that will solve some very important issues of our time.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

And here, imv, is the crux. It has nothing to do with "poor" and "financial duress" but rather just personal preference on what constitutes a "burden". For that matter, at age 1 we should equally be able to terminate the life because we had a financial change and they are now a "burden"

Yes, abortions are necessary in extreme

This is about as accurate as if I said your reasons aren't actually about caring for children but controlling women.

I think it is very relevant

It isn't. Again, nobody deserves to use anyone else's body, even if they'll die without it, even if it wasn't their fault. It wouldn't matter if they were a 1wk old embryo or a 7 year old child or a 24 year old person, at no point does anyone become entitled to someone else's body without their continued express consent.

I don't think it is body autonomy any more than it is body autonomy outside the womb. They have a different brain wavelength, different heart beat, different fingerprints, different blood type... it is a different person

I don't think you understand what body autonomy even is.

 

[fantome profane]

Then lets kill the sick 75 year olds (oops, I'm almost there) because of the healthcare cost, physical complications including cancers, pneumonia, covid, et al and death is so prevalent in the US.

On the other side, should I be forced by the government to give up my body to keep one of these people alive? What is one of these 75 year old guys you are talking about would die unless I donated one of my kidney’s. Maybe you think I should do it, but should the government force me to?

You see this is not just about money. It is about the right to control your own body.

 

[Kenny]

Not even remotely the same thing.

EXACTLY the same thing. Same principle. It is a burden, they have health issues that are costly, we have to take care of them and I have a life to live free from the burden of responsibility.

It is euthanasia... every child's right

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Then lets kill the sick 75 year olds (oops, I'm almost there) because of the healthcare cost, physical complications including cancers, pneumonia, covid, et al and death is so prevalent in the US.

Yes you definitely don't understand what body autonomy is.
If said 75 year old needed to use my body, organs, tissue, womb to live then yes, absolutely, pull that plug. Anything else isn't a body autonomy issue.

 

[Trailblazer]

You don't have to agree with it for it to be true. An action was taken that resulted in pregnancy. For some, the responsible thing to do in such a situation is to have an abortion.
It is a way of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy.

That is just your personal opinion, we all have those. In my opinion, having an abortion does not amount to a person taking responsibility for the consequences of their actions, it is a way to avoid taking responsibility for their actions.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Because left to its own the chances are it will naturally abort because this is the end of most pregnancies.

Again why does this matter? Just because some do not make it does not mean the ones that will should be terminated.

I mean that (my friend suffered severe head trauma and had to have a coma induced and her parents had to make the call to terminate the pregnancy because it was very high risk). But because of this there should be no needless hindrances that violate privacy laws that require even judges to jump through very high and narrow hoops to obtain someone's medical information (and even then what they get is very limited and only very specifically what is subpoenaed).
A woman has an abortion. We don't need to know why. We aren't even privileged to know she had one. If it's needed and necessary, we don't need to know anything about and a doctor should be able to perform it entirely free of any red tape needlessly restricting the results. If it's done as a means of contraction, we still don't have any right to know anything about it and the former be hindered because this group made a choice that is likely to receive a lecture from the doctor for being such a poor decision.
If she's raped, we still need to butt out and make sure she is freely able to make this decision for her own as the decision to get pregnant in the first place was taken from her, and the doctor needs to be able to perform this free of needless restrictions.

The problem with this is that another life different than the mothers is involved that cannot speak for itself.

 

[Kenny]

/

This is about as accurate as if I said your reasons aren't actually about caring for children but controlling women.

No. Not any more control than saying that you should drink and drive

It isn't. Again, nobody deserves to use anyone else's body, even if they'll die without it, even if it wasn't their fault. It wouldn't matter if they were a 1wk old embryo or a 7 year old child or a 24 year old person, at no point does anyone become entitled to someone else's body without their continued express consent.

So... since a mother might feed a baby with breastmilk, use their money, make us wake up at night, make us change their diapers, use my body to take care of all their needs....

Just terminate their life because I've decided that they don't deserve the use of my body for their needs... got it!

Child abuse is another term.

I don't think you understand what body autonomy even is.

That is a perspective that goes in both directions.

 

[Kenny]

On the other side, should I be forced by the government to give up my body to keep one of these people alive? What is one of these 75 year old guys you are talking about would die unless I donated one of my kidney’s. Maybe you think I should do it, but should the government force me to?

You see this is not just about money. It is about the right to control your own body.

A baby in the womb is not the mothers body. Not biologically or scientifically. Prove to me that it is the same body.

 

[fantome profane]

That is just your personal opinion, we all have those. In my opinion, having an abortion does not amount to a person taking responsibility for the consequences of their actions, it is a way to avoid taking responsibility for their actions.

Right, and the personal opinion of @SkepticThinker matters exactly the same as yours, or mine. Which is to say none of our opinions matter at all.

The only opinion that matters is that of the person who is pregnant and needs to decide what to do.

 

[fantome profane]

A baby in the womb is not the mothers body. Not biologically or scientifically. Prove to me that it is the same body.

I didn’t say it was the same body. If you want to argue that they are separate I agree. Just let the woman have the right to live her life separately if she chooses to.

 

[Kenny]

Yes you definitely don't understand what body autonomy is.
If said 75 year old needed to use my body, organs, tissue, womb to live then yes, absolutely, pull that plug. Anything else isn't a body autonomy issue.

Hmmm... my 84 year old mother-in-laws uses our bodies (which includes my organs) and everything we have to buy groceries, go to the doctor, massage her legs etc.

So, for you, just let her die because she doesn't have your consent to use your body for her needs. Got it.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

/


No. Not any more control than saying that you should drink and drive



So... since a mother might feed a baby with breastmilk, use their money, make us wake up at night, make us change their diapers, use my body to take care of all their needs....

Just terminate their life because I've decided that they don't deserve the use of my body for their needs... got it!

Child abuse is another term.



That is a perspective that goes in both directions.

*sigh* how do people stay this ignorant after going over things so many times for so many years?

If you were to compel the mother to nurse against her will that would be illegal. But the infant won't die without her milk. There are other options that don't violate her body autonomy which can be taken or the infant should be turned over to someone who will.

But if the infant specifically needed her milk or it would die, she has the choice to say no. Because nobody is entitled to someone else's body.
If you have an artificial womb ready to go, I will happily send you the fetus. But you can't force me to keep it in my body against my will. That's a violation of body autonomy.

 

[Kenny]

I didn’t say it was the same body. If you want to argue that they are separate I agree. Just let the woman have the right to live her life separately.

And that, is what we are trying to figure out. What is her "right to live" vs the babies "right to live".

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Hmmm... my 84 year old mother-in-laws uses our bodies (which includes my organs) and everything we have to buy groceries, go to the doctor, massage her legs etc.

So, for you, just let her die because she doesn't have your consent to use your body for her needs. Got it.

I can't tell if this is what you believe or you're you're being willfully obtuse.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I haven't read through the whole thread. What I wanted to comment on is how this is likely to damage the Republicans.

If abortion is recriminalized in the US, a valuable wedge issue for the right becomes a valuable wedge issue for the left. It used to be, hey anti-choice conservatives, get out there and vote for Republicans before the baby butchers harvest more children's parts for profit, and off they go to vote for Republicans. After reversing Roe, it works the other way: hey pro-choice people, you know what to do if you want abortion decriminalized again.

Even if the Court decides that the blowback will be too damaging to conservative interests and doesn't overturn Roe (is this leak a testing of the waters by the conservative justices?) - even the hint of this happening is already being used to enlist the support of anybody who supports reproductive freedom out to vote for Democrats, which I expect will siphon off quite a few votes that would have gone red even among MAGA. I just saw this:

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Yes, it's about right to privacy, like I said.
It's been the law of the land for about 50 years now.

Separate but equal was the law of the land for over 50 years as well. How long a law is in effect has no bearing on if the decision was correct or not according to the constitution.

Screw all the women in the rest of the country, I guess.

This is ridiculous. Like I have said we need a better conversation. I have two daughters, a wife, a sister, many friends and family members that are women and girls that I love. Do you think I want to screw them all over? If so, then our conversation is over and you have convinced no one of your position. I don't call prochoice people murderers simply because I don't believe they are.

If the Republicans get control and get their way, they will pass a federal law banning all abortions. Mark my words.

So what, that will be unconstitutional per this pending decision if it is the actual decision. Also, when democrats get back in control they would just repeal it. And back and forth it would go.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

*constitution prohibits some slavery.

A reprehensible topic for another time but just as an FYI the constitution has an exemption clause to allow convicts to be slaves.

Another thread if you want to discuss.

 

[Kenny]

*sigh* how do people stay this ignorant after going over things so many times for so many years?

If you were to compel the mother to nurse against her will that would be illegal. But the infant won't die without her milk. There are other options that don't violate her body autonomy which can be taken or the infant should be turned over to someone who will.

But if the infant specifically needed her milk or it would die, she has the choice to say no. Because nobody is entitled to someone else's body.
If you have an artificial womb ready to go, I will happily send you the fetus. But you can't force me to keep it in my body against my will. That's a violation of body autonomy.

And this is love manifest. It is this kind of love that causes wars IMO. It is all about me, no responsibility, no sacrifice.

Maybe that is why I like the history of Jesus who came to serve and not to be served. It was unselfishness vs selfishness, it was responsibility vs irresponsibility, it was love your neighbor vs crucify your neighbor. It was suffer the little children to come.

Yes... I like the the history of Jesus.

And he loves those who have had abortions too.