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

[leibowde84]

Do you find the label 'anti-life' to be any less misleading and offensive?

It's not a matter of measuring bodily autonomy against the life of a fetus. I believe strongly that bodily autonomy outweighs any other right out there. It is the basis of all other rights and is the basis of the argu mentioned that eventually outlawed slavery in this country. As a result, it seems ridiculous to fault those who feel this way.

 

[Drolefille]

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 but if legally lines are going to be drawn somewhere, viability with exceptions for life endangerment - as pretty much any abortion is at that stage - is where I'd rather be instead of imaginary "fetal pain" lines.

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.

I have never seen a woman coaxed into having an abortion and I work with, for the record, women in poverty, women with no options and women in abusive relationships. I do know they exist, but far more often they have people telling them NOT to abort despite, for example, having 4 kids in state custody, no income and a heroin addiction. There's essentially no political benefit to increased numbers of abortions as no one really wants more of them on a political level. Financially - the federal government doesn't pay for them, they're either covered by private insurance, out of pocket, or charity (sometimes state Medicaid covers them.). It's fiscally conservative I suppose in that they're cheaper than a pregnancy, and safer for the record, but instead people do complain that they're more expensive than condoms which seems the wrong tactic.

I don't want there to be more abortions numerically, I want there to be universal access to abortion and increased sex education and access to contraceptives. Not financial incentives to sterilize women like I see all too often :-/

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.

All this anecdotal is fair. Statistically women are no more likely to have mental health problems such as depression following an abortion than if they hadn't had one. There's no uptick in depression or suicidality, and the biggest issues reported by women post-abortion are the stigma of it, not regret for doing it. Not that every woman is the same, but looking at the aggregate.

 

[Deidre]

I agree but if legally lines are going to be drawn somewhere, viability with exceptions for life endangerment - as pretty much any abortion is at that stage - is where I'd rather be instead of imaginary "fetal pain" lines.


I have never seen a woman coaxed into having an abortion and I work with, for the record, women in poverty, women with no options and women in abusive relationships. I do know they exist, but far more often they have people telling them NOT to abort despite, for example, having 4 kids in state custody, no income and a heroin addiction. There's essentially no political benefit to increased numbers of abortions as no one really wants more of them on a political level. Financially - the federal government doesn't pay for them, they're either covered by private insurance, out of pocket, or charity (sometimes state Medicaid covers them.). It's fiscally conservative I suppose in that they're cheaper than a pregnancy, and safer for the record, but instead people do complain that they're more expensive than condoms which seems the wrong tactic.

I don't want there to be more abortions numerically, I want there to be universal access to abortion and increased sex education and access to contraceptives. Not financial incentives to sterilize women like I see all too often :-/


All this anecdotal is fair. Statistically women are no more likely to have mental health problems such as depression following an abortion than if they hadn't had one. There's no uptick in depression or suicidality, and the biggest issues reported by women post-abortion are the stigma of it, not regret for doing it. Not that every woman is the same, but looking at the aggregate.

I hear you, and I'm not in disagreement. After I posted in this thread...I thought, hmmm...maybe you shouldn't have. lol My views on abortion are somewhat all over the place. I was once a theist, so there's this part of me that has that viewpoint about abortion from a theistic view...then, I have a secular view...then, I have had friends who are deeply pained by the decisions they made, for a variety of reasons. Then, I read things that contradict a whole host of things such as when does life become life, and so on. I've always believed it isn't my place to tell someone else what to do with their body, and yet...I'm torn with when does life begin? I'm torn in a few different places...

So, when I see these topics, I should refrain from posting, because I never quite articulate everything I intend. This happened on an atheist site recently...and someone posted...''you are pro life, Deidre?'' Like with an incredulous type of tone. As if being an atheist means one must automatically be pro choice. Thing is I AM pro choice, but I also believe in being real on how I view when life begins. At the end of the day, we have to be true to ourselves, and yet...try to be empathetic to what others are going through. It's sometimes a hard balance, but I try.

I appreciate your thoughts on it, Drole.

 

[Koldo]

Yep. Sure do.

Tough luck. You will get over it... eventually.

What's your point?

Read back as to how this started. My point is that I have a particular preference. That's all.

Can't you just say "pro-choice" instead? It is obviously the most accurate way to classify the movement to preserve a woman's right to "choose" what happens inside her own body. It is also the only thing that can be said about everyone who opposes taking away this right from women. Thus, any other classification would be inferior ... assuming you are attempting to be honest.

The problem with 'pro-choice'/'pro-life' is that it implies that whoever is not part of the group is opposed to a human right. It instantly demonizes the other group.

 

[Koldo]

It's not a matter of measuring bodily autonomy against the life of a fetus. I believe strongly that bodily autonomy outweighs any other right out there. It is the basis of all other rights and is the basis of the argu mentioned that eventually outlawed slavery in this country. As a result, it seems ridiculous to fault those who feel this way.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I comprehend what you are saying, but I have no idea how it relates to that question.

 

[leibowde84]

I have no idea what you are talking about. I comprehend what you are saying, but I have no idea how it relates to that question.

It's pretty clear I think. What don't you understand?

 

[leibowde84]

I have no idea what you are talking about. I comprehend what you are saying, but I have no idea how it relates to that question.

I'm just saying that there is nothing about my view on the subject that is "anti-life." So, I would ask for an explanation as to why that classification is accurate.

 

[Koldo]

It's pretty clear I think. What don't you understand?

I don't understand how it relates to the post you quoted.

 

[Koldo]

I'm just saying that there is nothing about my view on the subject that is "anti-life." So, I would ask for an explanation as to why that classification is accurate.

You are 'anti-life' if you argue against the position from 'pro-life'. That's what makes you 'anti-life'.
Which is, as I have explained, why I don't like 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life'.

 

[leibowde84]

You are 'anti-life' if you argue against the position from 'pro-life'. That's what makes you 'anti-life'.
Which is, as I have explained, why I don't like 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life'.

By saying that you are assuming that "pro-life" is the standard. Wouldn't it be less offensive to say "pro-choice" and "anti-choice." I think we can all agree that this would be a much more accurate representation of the argument. The issue is whether the woman should be able to "choose" what happens inside her own body, right?

 

[leibowde84]

You are 'anti-life' if you argue against the position from 'pro-life'. That's what makes you 'anti-life'.
Which is, as I have explained, why I don't like 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life'.

I do get your point, though, that the names are confusion. I certainly would consider myself to be pro-life (as I believe abortion to be morally wrong) and pro-choice (as I believe that the legality of the situation demands that the choice be available).

 

[Koldo]

By saying that you are assuming that "pro-life" is the standard.

Not at all.

Wouldn't it be less offensive to say "pro-choice" and "anti-choice."

We won't agree on how offensive something sounds.

I think we can all agree that this would be a much more accurate representation of the argument. The issue is whether the woman should be able to "choose" what happens inside her own body, right?

I don't find it accurate at all. That's how you want to frame the issue. The issue is whether abortion should be/remain legalized.

 

[leibowde84]

Not at all.



We won't agree on how offensive something sounds.



I don't find it accurate at all. That's how you want to frame the issue. The issue is whether abortion should be/remain legalized.

You still have not provided reasoning why you feel that "anti-life" is a good representation of the legal issue. Can you do that please, because I still have no way of knowing why you would feel that "anti-life" would accurately define the legal issue. I'm a lawyer myself, and I see the legal issue as whether bodily autonomy (or "choice" as to what you allow inside your body) is protected. In other words, whether a woman has the right to "choose." Can you refute this if you don't agree with it? It just seems like you think that the pro-choice side is wrong and you want to insult them at every opportunity.

 

[leibowde84]

Not at all.



We won't agree on how offensive something sounds.



I don't find it accurate at all. That's how you want to frame the issue. The issue is whether abortion should be/remain legalized.

And, you refuse to address the point that I am pro-life and pro-choice. So, how can you defend calling me "anti-life" when I am in fact, "pro-life?" Your argument just seems foolish. But, I am all ears if you can provide an argument that "anti-life" is more accurate than "pro-choice."

 

[Koldo]

You still have not provided reasoning why you feel that "anti-life" is a good representation of the legal issue. Can you do that please, because I still have no way of knowing why you would feel that "anti-life" would accurately define the legal issue.

I haven't said it is.
What I did say is that one side of the debate calls itself 'pro-life', which makes the other side be 'anti-life'.
The same happens with 'pro-choice' and 'anti-choice'.
I don't like any of these labels, and I have already said so.

I'm a lawyer myself, and I see the legal issue as whether bodily autonomy (or "choice" as to what you allow inside your body) is protected. In other words, whether a woman has the right to "choose." Can you refute this if you don't agree with it?.

That's just one way to frame the issue as I have said.
A 'pro-life' could frame it as: "it is a legal issue as to whether the fetus' life is protected by law".

It just seems like you think that the pro-choice side is wrong and you want to insult them at every opportunity.

I don't intend to insult anyone. But it is not like I can do much if you feel insulted.

 

[Koldo]

And, you refuse to address the point that I am pro-life and pro-choice. So, how can you defend calling me "anti-life" when I am in fact, "pro-life?" Your argument just seems foolish.

You are not 'pro-life' if you are not part of the group that opposes the legalization of abortion.
Since you oppose the 'pro-life' group that makes you 'anti-life' whether you like it or not.
Which is why, as I have said many times already, I don't like these labels.

But, I am all ears if you can provide an argument that "anti-life" is more accurate than "pro-choice."

I haven't said that.

 

[leibowde84]

You are not 'pro-life' if you are not part of the group that opposes the legalization of abortion.
Since you oppose the 'pro-life' group that makes you 'anti-life' whether you like it or not.
Which is why, as I have said many times already, I don't like these labels.



I haven't said that.

My argument is simply that the life of the fetus is not at issue legally. The legal issue is the right of the woman to refuse the use of her body to any other living thing. That's it. That is why "pro-life" and "anti-life" are both incorrect. The life of the fetus is a moral issue, but not a legal one.

 

[Koldo]

My argument is simply that the life of the fetus is not at issue legally. The legal issue is the right of the woman to refuse the use of her body to any other living thing. That's it. That is why "pro-life" and "anti-life" are both incorrect. The life of the fetus is a moral issue, but not a legal one.

This is just the way you want to frame it.

 

[leibowde84]

This is just the way you want to frame it.

We are talking about legality, not subjective opinion. It is not the way that I want to frame it, it is the way that the legal issue demands it be framed. If you disagree, please present a legal argument for your reasoning. You can say "it's just the way I want to frame it" all you want, but that doesn't make it reasonable to do so. You have to back up that claim, which you have failed to do. What's your argument?

 

[Koldo]

We are talking about legality, not subjective opinion. It is not the way that I want to frame it, it is the way that the legal issue demands it be framed. If you disagree, please present a legal argument for your reasoning. You can say "it's just the way I want to frame it" all you want, but that doesn't make it reasonable to do so. You have to back up that claim, which you have failed to do. What's your argument?

Let's make it simple:
Prove that this issue demands to be framed on the way you have done.