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

[Koldo]

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.

That's not enough for you. But that's enough for the pro-life.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's not enough for you. But that's enough for the pro-life.

It's enough for a "pro-life" hypocrite, which is what someone would be if they appeal to "sanctity of life" as the reason for their position on abortion while treating life as disposable in other contexts.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

I wouldn't give the doctor any authority in the mother's decision. A doctor is merely an adviser & service provider...one who cannot dictate anyone's choice.

 

[Koldo]

It's enough for a "pro-life" hypocrite, which is what someone would be if they appeal to "sanctity of life" as the reason for their position on abortion while treating life as disposable in other contexts.

They will have, more often than not, an explanation as to why the 'sanctity of life' is not applicable on those other cases.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

I think we are in agreement, but there is no way to escape the legal aspect of this discussion, as it always and must boil down to legal rights. Also, I can't say whether I agree that abortion being legal hurts women, but I cannot get my mind around changing the law. Freedom always comes at a cost, but it is worth that cost in my opinion.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's enough for a "pro-life" hypocrite, which is what someone would be if they appeal to "sanctity of life" as the reason for their position on abortion while treating life as disposable in other contexts.

To be fair to the religiously based pro-life types, it's certainly possible to have a reasoned & nuanced position. It would look inconsistent to non-believers, but scripture can be complex, murky & conflicted....to reason from it would yield results which look inconsistent to us outsiders.

 

[leibowde84]

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'.



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

You can't think of any?! Really?! There are tons.

For example, if we are going to legally force a woman to give up their bodily autonomy (force them to allow another living thing to inhabit and depend on their physical body), laws that would obligate a parent to donate a kidney to save their dying child, donate their organs after death, and/or give up an organ to save the life of a stranger, would all be on the table as well. This is an extremely slippery slope, as bodily autonomy is sacred in this country and creates a barrier from legislating morality. This is something that I hold very dear, and, as a lawyer, I cannot see any way of making abortion illegal without addressing this huge problem.

 

[leibowde84]

That's not enough for you. But that's enough for the pro-life.

So, are you not pro-life, do pro-lifers have an explanation for getting around this issue, or do they just ignore it?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

They will have, more often than not, an explanation as to why the 'sanctity of life' is not applicable on those other cases.

If they do, they're keeping it to themselves.

To be fair to the religiously based pro-life types, it's certainly possible to have a reasoned & nuanced position. It would look inconsistent to non-believers, but scripture can be complex, murky & conflicted....to reason from it would yield results which look inconsistent to us outsiders.

If it's conflicted, then wouldn't the reason it appears inconsistent be that it IS inconsistent?

 

[Koldo]

So, are you not pro-life, do pro-lifers have an explanation for getting around this issue, or do they just ignore it?

I certainly wouldn't call myself a pro-life. The answer you seek is highly personal. I am quite certain different people will give you different answers.

 

[Koldo]

You can't think of any?! Really?! There are tons.

For example, if we are going to legally force a woman to give up their bodily autonomy (force them to allow another living thing to inhabit and depend on their physical body), laws that would obligate a parent to donate a kidney to save their dying child, donate their organs after death, and/or give up an organ to save the life of a stranger, would all be on the table as well. This is an extremely slippery slope, as bodily autonomy is sacred in this country and creates a barrier from legislating morality. This is something that I hold very dear, and, as a lawyer, I cannot see any way of making abortion illegal without addressing this huge problem.

Not really. There are many countries where abortion is pretty much completely illegal ( with some expections ), and we don't see these laws. Or at least, I have yet to hear about them.

 

[leibowde84]

Not really. There are many countries where abortion is pretty much completely illegal ( with some expections ), and we don't see these laws. Or at least, I have yet to hear about them.

The actions of other countries do not matter, as they do not have to live under our constitution and judicial precedence. We absolutely do, and we have no choice to ignore bodily autonomy.

So, how could you accomplish it under the US Constitution and Judicial Precedent? I do not disagree that it is possible under other constitutions, just not ours.

 

[Deidre]

I think we are in agreement, but there is no way to escape the legal aspect of this discussion, as it always and must boil down to legal rights. Also, I can't say whether I agree that abortion being legal hurts women, but I cannot get my mind around changing the law. Freedom always comes at a cost, but it is worth that cost in my opinion.

well said.
yes, freedom comes with a price, always.
which the pro-abortion camp would have people otherwise believe. I don't think it should be made illegal, but I don't like the lies that are told to women in order to coax them into having abortions, when frankly, there could have been other options given to them. Abortion is a business...and a political chess piece...so, it behooves whoever has a vested interest to those ends, to see more of them to take place every year.

 

[Koldo]

The actions of other countries do not matter, as they do not have to live under our constitution and judicial precedence. We absolutely do, and we have no choice to ignore bodily autonomy.

So, how could you accomplish it under the US Constitution and Judicial Precedent? I do not disagree that it is possible under other constitutions, just not ours.

Accomplish what?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

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.

How so?

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.

Abortion absolves responsibility? How so?

I have had different reactions from women who have had abortions. There are a few women here at RF who have had abortions who don't regret their decisions.

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.

I disagree. I think it certainly is a legal issue since it poses the threat of invasion of privacy as well as violating a citizens civil rights.

 

[Revoltingest]

If they do, they're keeping it to themselves.


If it's conflicted, then wouldn't the reason it appears inconsistent be that it IS inconsistent?

That's religion for ya! Scriptures weren't desogmed by professional logicians, so I'll blame many inconsistencies on this rather than hypocrisy.

 

[Debater Slayer]

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

This is a textbook example of circular reasoning: you are basically saying that abortion is illegal because it is murder and murder because it is illegal. You didn't justify either of your statements, so I think they are fundamentally slanted toward a particular preconception.

 

[Deidre]

How so?



Abortion absolves responsibility? How so?

I have had different reactions from women who have had abortions. There are a few women here at RF who have had abortions who don't regret their decisions.



I disagree. I think it certainly is a legal issue since it poses the threat of invasion of privacy as well as violating a citizens civil rights.

Not having regrets doesn't mean the decision doesn't bring lasting pain. (for many women, not all)

My friends at first weren't upset about their decisions, until a few years later.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have had different reactions from women who have had abortions. There are a few women here at RF who have had abortions who don't regret their decisions.

... and probably a few who did regret not having one... though because of the social stigma around admitting this, it can be hard to find women who say this openly.

 

[Debater Slayer]

In many cases, "pro-life" is the best euphemism ever created for making crackdowns on reproductive rights sound noble and ethically commendable. The fact that it is so often used in reference to reproductive rights as opposed to things like wars and famines speaks volumes about the dogmatic aspects inherent in it.