Should a woman's bodily autonomy be disregarded when it comes to pregnancy?

[leibowde84]

I feel that a lot of pro-lifers refuse to address the issue that makes abortion so debateable. The issue is not the sanctity of life, when life begins, or whether abortion is morally wrong. The legal issue (and it is most certainly a legal question) is whether the fetus' right to live and use the mother's body to do so outweighs the woman's right to bodily autonomy. There is currently no law that forces someone to give up the use of their body to another against their will. So, if the fetus' right to survive inside the woman's body outweighs the mother's, what other laws could be enacted as a result.

Btw, I agree that morally speaking, abortion is wrong (most of the time). And, I also feel that the question of when life begins is not associated with this issue and is a means to distract frrom the real legal issue.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I feel that a lot of pro-lifers refuse to address the issue that makes abortion so debateable. The issue is not the sanctity of life, when life begins, or whether abortion is morally wrong. The legal issue (and it is most certainly a legal question) is whether the fetus' right to live and use the mother's body to do so outweighs the woman's right to bodily autonomy. There is currently no law that forces someone to give up the use of their body to another against their will. So, if the fetus' right to survive inside the woman's body outweighs the mother's, what other laws could be enacted as a result.

Btw, I agree that morally speaking, abortion is wrong (most of the time). And, I also feel that the question of when life begins is not associated with this issue and is a means to distract frrom the real legal issue.

The SCOTUS decision regarding the Roe vs Wade case introducing fetal viability in determining abortion rights is still, in my opinion, the best legal and ethical offer in the constitutionality of bodily rights for pregnant women.

 

[Revoltingest]

I feel that a lot of pro-lifers refuse to address the issue that makes abortion so debateable. The issue is not the sanctity of life, when life begins, or whether abortion is morally wrong. The legal issue (and it is most certainly a legal question) is whether the fetus' right to live and use the mother's body to do so outweighs the woman's right to bodily autonomy. There is currently no law that forces someone to give up the use of their body to another against their will. So, if the fetus' right to survive inside the woman's body outweighs the mother's, what other laws could be enacted as a result.

Btw, I agree that morally speaking, abortion is wrong (most of the time). And, I also feel that the question of when life begins is not associated with this issue and is a means to distract frrom the real legal issue.

There is some legal precedent for giving up one's bodily autonomy to benefit others, ie, the military draft. It differs in that autonomy is given up for society in general (rather than for a specific individual), but is even worse that mental autonomy is also sacrificed. Note that while the draft isn't currently operating, young males must still register for it under penalty of legal & other sanctions.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The SCOTUS decision regarding the Roe vs Wade case introducing fetal viability in determining abortion rights is still, in my opinion, the best legal and ethical offer in the constitutionality of bodily rights for pregnant women.

IMO, using viability as the point where abortion is no longer legal makes no sense at all. Effectively, it's saying "as long as the fetus can't survive without you, you aren't obligated to it... but as soon as it no longer strictly needs you, you aren't allowed to separate yourself from it."

IMO, viability should only mark the point where ending the pregnancy changes from aborting the fetus to attempting a live birth (and even then, it should be a medical decision, not a legal one). Either way, the woman should still have the right to end the pregnancy when she chooses.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is some legal precedent for giving up one's bodily autonomy to benefit others, ie, the military draft. It differs in that autonomy is given up for society in general (rather than for a specific individual), but is even worse that mental autonomy is also sacrificed. Note that while the draft isn't currently operating, young males must still register for it under penalty of legal & other sanctions.

Conscription is a form of slavery and an affront to human dignity. It should be outlawed, not used as a precedent for other injustices.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

IMO, using viability as the point where abortion is no longer legal makes no sense at all. Effectively, it's saying "as long as the fetus can't survive without you, you aren't obligated to it... but as soon as it no longer strictly needs you, you aren't allowed to separate yourself from it."

IMO, viability should only mark the point where ending the pregnancy changes from aborting the fetus to attempting a live birth (and even then, it should be a medical decision, not a legal one). Either way, the woman should still have the right to end the pregnancy when she chooses.

I agree with you, though I'm framing my point in regards to the current interpretation of constitutional rights and bodily autonomy. If you recall, our personal opinions on a woman's bodily autonomy are similar line by line.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree with you, though I'm framing my point in regards to the current interpretation of constitutional rights and bodily autonomy. If you recall, our personal opinions on a woman's bodily autonomy are similar line by line.

Sorry - I didn't mean to sound like I was arguing with you. I was just venting at the world about an issue you raised.

 

[Revoltingest]

Conscription is a form of slavery and an affront to human dignity. It should be outlawed, not used as a precedent for other injustices.

I agree.
I call it "time share slavery".

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Sorry - I didn't mean to sound like I was arguing with you. I was just venting at the world about an issue you raised.

No worries, love. Vent away.

 

[Debater Slayer]

IMO, using viability as the point where abortion is no longer legal makes no sense at all. Effectively, it's saying "as long as the fetus can't survive without you, you aren't obligated to it... but as soon as it no longer strictly needs you, you aren't allowed to separate yourself from it."

IMO, viability should only mark the point where ending the pregnancy changes from aborting the fetus to attempting a live birth (and even then, it should be a medical decision, not a legal one). Either way, the woman should still have the right to end the pregnancy when she chooses.

Admittedly, this issue makes me feel very conflicted because the idea of aborting a viable fetus (a live baby at that point) makes me cringe, but at the same time I compare it to the fact that I'm not legally obligated to donate either of my kidneys to a person dying of kidney failure. Since my right to bodily autonomy trumps that person's right to force any change on my body even to save his/her life, I can't argue with any degree of consistency that the same logic shouldn't apply to pregnancies and abortion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Admittedly, this issue makes me feel very conflicted because the idea of aborting a viable fetus (a live baby at that point) makes me cringe, but at the same time I compare it to the fact that I'm not legally obligated to donate either of my kidneys to a person dying of kidney failure. Since my right to bodily autonomy trumps that person's right to force any change on my body even to save his/her life, I can't argue with any degree of consistency that the same logic shouldn't apply to pregnancies and abortion.

Not even a kidney - a parent wouldn't even have to give up a hair on their head to save their child. To prohibit the termination of a pregnancy - at any point - is to treat a fetus as some sort of magical being that has special rights and privileges that no person has once they're born.

 

[Conceivia]

When a person does something illegal, that person looses rights, going to prison. The person's actions result in the loss of his or her rights.

A woman's actions result in pregnancy. A man's actions actions as well.

The baby did nothing. Therefore the babies rights must out weight the rights of the man and woman in this case.

It is not strictly a case of who's rights take precedence. There is also the fact that when someone commits murder, that person will form a justification to murder in his or her mind. Once that justification is formed, it leads the way to other bad behavior being justified.

Tony

 

[Conceivia]

I should point out, that you can't make the woman fully responsible. In equality like that creates all sorts of problems in society. Both the man and woman need to be held responsible. If we don't, wejust make the problem worse.

Tony

 

[Revoltingest]

When a person does something illegal, that person looses rights, going to prison. The person's actions result in the loss of his or her rights.
A woman's actions result in pregnancy. A man's actions actions as well.
The baby did nothing. Therefore the babies rights must out weight the rights of the man and woman in this case.
It is not strictly a case of who's rights take precedence. There is also the fact that when someone commits murder, that person will form a justification to murder in his or her mind. Once that justification is formed, it leads the way to other bad behavior being justified.

How does punishment for criminal behavior relate to pregnancy?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The baby did nothing. Therefore the babies rights must out weight the rights of the man and woman in this case.

Do you think this should be the case generally?

Hypothetical scenario: a 5-year-old boy has leukemia. Without a bone marrow donation, he'll die. The only match to be found is the boy's father.

For a variety of reasons, the father doesn't want to give the donation. He's worried that while he's recovering from the donation, he'll lose his job and with it the income he uses to support his other children. He's also worried about the risks to his own health (partly because he's worried about possibly leaving his children without a father; partly because he - perhaps selfishly - doesn't want to endure pain).

Should this man be compelled to donate his bone marrow? Remember: the child did nothing to deserve a death sentence. Do the child's rights outweigh the father's?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I should point out, that you can't make the woman fully responsible. In equality like that creates all sorts of problems in society. Both the man and woman need to be held responsible. If we don't, wejust make the problem worse.

Tony

What do you mean by "held responsible"?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is not strictly a case of who's rights take precedence. There is also the fact that when someone commits murder, that person will form a justification to murder in his or her mind. Once that justification is formed, it leads the way to other bad behavior being justified.

The same could be said for slavery.

 

[Koldo]

I feel that a lot of pro-lifers refuse to address the issue that makes abortion so debateable. The issue is not the sanctity of life, when life begins, or whether abortion is morally wrong. The legal issue (and it is most certainly a legal question) is whether the fetus' right to live and use the mother's body to do so outweighs the woman's right to bodily autonomy.

Sure. But the pro-life's reasoning is that the fetus' right to life supersedes the woman's right to bodily automony. The sanctity of life is brought up to explain the 'why'.

There is currently no law that forces someone to give up the use of their body to another against their will. So, if the fetus' right to survive inside the woman's body outweighs the mother's, what other laws could be enacted as a result.

You tell me. I can't think of any.

 

[Deidre]

The state/government should stay out of legislating anything having to do with a woman's reproductive rights. That's between her and her doctor. Having said that, society can come up with all kinds of fancy legal jargon, but at the end of the day...,abortion hurts women more than it helps.

It should remain legal, but changing laws to further absolve people from sexual responsibility isn't helping helping women or society. At the end of the day, you will still have to live with the decisions you make and my friends who've had abortions say a day doesn't go by when they question their decision.

I don't morally judge anyone in these cases but what I am saying is that we need to stop making abortion a legal issue because it distorts what's at stake, and sells a bill of goods to a woman faced with such a decision.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sure. But the pro-life's reasoning is that the fetus' right to life supersedes the woman's right to bodily automony. The sanctity of life is brought up to explain the 'why'.

But that's not enough. Not as long as the lives of people who have already been born are considered at least as "sanctified" as the life of a fetus but they don't enjoy similar protections/obligations on others.

Heck - we don't even require people to render CPR when someone needs it. Our laws are written based on the assumption that your right to autonomy trumps my right to life.