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

[leibowde84]

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

I've already provided my reasoning. Why are you refusing to provide yours? I've explained why I feel that "pro-choice" and "anti-choice" are the most accurate classifications due to the legal issue being whether a woman should be able to "choose" what uses her body directly. Why do you feel that "pro-life" and "anti-life" are more accurate?

 

[leibowde84]

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

"Anti-life" would seem to signify that a person did not consider the fetus to be human life. That is not what is meant by "pro-choice," which merely sees a woman's bodily autonomy as being guaranteed by law.

 

[leibowde84]

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

Also, you claim that the mere fact that "pro-lifers" classify themselves as such that this demands the classification of the other side as "anti-life?" Why do you think this is reasonable? It is certainly allowing one side to define the other.

 

[Koldo]

I've already provided my reasoning. Why are you refusing to provide yours? I've explained why I feel that "pro-choice" and "anti-choice" are the most accurate classifications due to the legal issue being whether a woman should be able to "choose" what uses her body directly. Why do you feel that "pro-life" and "anti-life" are more accurate?

I have not said they are more accurate. I find all of these labels to be lacking.

"Anti-life" would seem to signify that a person did not consider the fetus to be human life. That is not what is meant by "pro-choice," which merely sees a woman's bodily autonomy as being guaranteed by law.

'Pro-choice' says that, legally, woman's bodily autonomy should take precedence over fetus' life.

Also, you claim that the mere fact that "pro-lifers" classify themselves as such that this demands the classification of the other side as "anti-life?" Why do you think this is reasonable? It is certainly allowing one side to define the other.

It demands such a classification if you are opposed to what they defend.
That's why I dislike labels like them.

 

[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 agree, but I do not think you are addressing the issue in this forum. Abortion probably does hurt more women than it helps, but that is not being contested in this discussion. It simply is attempting to show that the "choice" must be available legally.

 

[Etritonakin]

Lots of irrelevant stuff.... blah blah blah -was in a rush -didn't read the original post but had some thoughts kicking around -blah blah blah

 

[leibowde84]

As long as we are talking bodily autonomy, would not autonomy begin with the very beginning of a body?

The fact that an unborn child at any stage cannot defend itself or speak for itself does not mean it does not have autonomy or rights.

Society as a whole is seen to have an obligation to defend a born child or adult who cannot speak for themselves or defend themselves -so why not more so an unborn child?

I would think women -who have had to fight to be heard and have say over their own bodies -should be more likely to think so.

You are asking a moral question, when this is a discussion about the need, legally, for the choice to be available to preserve a woman's bodily autonomy. Moreover, the bodily autonomy of the fetus is not at issue at all. Bodily autonomy means a person has control over who or what uses their body, for what, and for how long. Its why you can't be forced to donate blood, tissue, or organs. Even if you are dead. So, although the fetus is not legally considered a "person" with the rights that attach, even if it was, an abortion would not violate it. No one is trying to use the fetus' body to support another living thing. It is a one way street in this context.

The "right to live" for the fetus is not guaranteed BECAUSE of the woman's bodily autonomy. Morally, of course, I would agree, but morality cannot and should not be legislated. But, if you can explain how bodily autonomy would be violated for the fetus, I am all ears.

 

[Etritonakin]

Oooooops -I posted after just reading the title -my bad

 

[leibowde84]

I guess I put this post up because I am tired of this issue being treated as if it shouldn't be one. The right to bodily autonomy is critical and is the basis for every other right we enjoy. If this control is absolved, it would be extremely dangerous precedent.

 

[1robin]

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.

That is a more reasonable explanation than I am used to but I still think it in error. The question is not does the right to life of the fetus equal the mothers (I would favor abortion if it did). It is does the mother right to convenience outweigh the fetus' right to survival. Only a tiny fraction of abortions are done to protect the mother's life. Most are done to protect the mothers right to avoid the consequences of her actions at the expense of an innocent life who is not allowed to defend it's self.

 

[leibowde84]

That is a more reasonable explanation than I am used to but I still think it in error. The question is not does the right to life of the fetus equal the mothers (I would favor abortion if it did). It is does the mother right to convenience outweigh the fetus' right to survival. Only a tiny fraction of abortions are done to protect the mother's life. Most are done to protect the mothers right to avoid the consequences of her actions at the expense of an innocent life who is not allowed to defend it's self.

That could only be the case if the Mother's right to bodily autonomy is ignored. You can't even get to your point without completely disregarding the Mother's right to have dominion over what lives inside her body. How do you explain ignoring the right that is the basis for all other rights? My right to live does not force anyone to give up their right to bodily autonomy, so why should a mother be forced to give up her right to use of her body to a fetus? No one can be forced to support another thing inside their body without forcing that person to give up their bodily autonomy, so how do you rectify this being done to women who are pregnant?

Morally speaking, of course you are right, but we are speaking to legality, not morality. And, any lawyer will tell you that legislating morality is a very slippery slope.

 

[leibowde84]

That is a more reasonable explanation than I am used to but I still think it in error. The question is not does the right to life of the fetus equal the mothers (I would favor abortion if it did). It is does the mother right to convenience outweigh the fetus' right to survival. Only a tiny fraction of abortions are done to protect the mother's life. Most are done to protect the mothers right to avoid the consequences of her actions at the expense of an innocent life who is not allowed to defend it's self.

I certainly don't think that statements like "most are done to protect the mother's right to avoid consequences" could ever be considered in a court of law, so are not relevant to this conversation. There are so many circumstances that we both do not understand in every situation where abortion is considered, so I must say that is not a valid argument when speaking of the general legality of abortion.

So, I will ask this as clearly as I can. How do you rationalize removing the mother's right to bodily autonomy when it is not done in any other situation unless due process is involved?

 

[1robin]

That could only be the case if the Mother's right to bodily autonomy is ignored. You can't even get to your point without completely disregarding the Mother's right to have dominion over what lives inside her body. How do you explain ignoring the right that is the basis for all other rights? My right to live does not force anyone to give up their right to bodily autonomy, so why should a mother be forced to give up her right to use of her body to a fetus? No one can be forced to support another thing inside their body without forcing that person to give up their bodily autonomy, so how do you rectify this being done to women who are pregnant?

First there is no objective right to anything without God. There is an old saying that your rights end at my nose. No one has ever granted humanity with carte blanche autonomy over anything. All autonomy is taken in comparison with value judgments if they affect another's autonomy. You can not argue for ones autonomy at another's expense without justification.

Morally speaking, of course you are right, but we are speaking to legality, not morality. And, any lawyer will tell you that legislating morality is a very slippery slope.

Legality is supposed to be based on morality. So morality is the more important. I do not defend laws because they are merely reflections of moral dilemmas.

The problem here is no one has any idea what is actually the case. The Christian believes but does not know that a human being possesses infinite worth and a soul. The atheist agrees that human life has some inherent value and rights (though they have no objective basis for claiming such). neither side knows at what point a fetus acquires these rights or attributes. The difference is this:

Christians not knowing gamble for life. They hold the person who committed the act responsible for the effect. This is actually a legal term called blood liability.

Abortionists do not know but gamble on death. They hold the person who committed the act free from repercussion at the person who is the effect to have a death sentence.

There is no identifiable objective when a life has any rights at all (especially without God) so lets take the default position of at least not killing lives off on an industrial scale without sufficient justification. We may have aborted the guy who cured cancer by now for pity sake.

 

[1robin]

I certainly don't think that statements like "most are done to protect the mother's right to avoid consequences" could ever be considered in a court of law, so are not relevant to this conversation. There are so many circumstances that we both do not understand in every situation where abortion is considered, so I must say that is not a valid argument when speaking of the general legality of abortion.

Ok, if it makes you feel any better about millions of lives ended in the womb we can leave it as the vast majority are for reasons other than the life or physical health of the mother.

So, I will ask this as clearly as I can. How do you rationalize removing the mother's right to bodily autonomy when it is not done in any other situation unless due process is involved?

In any case where ones autonomy effects another neither has full autonomy. BTW what gave anyone autonomy over anything? Where did we get this miraculous right? No human has them to dispense, rights are things that if justifiable are inherent to our nature and not to be taken away. They are no things which anyone has to distribute to anyone else. If nature is all there is it never granted autonomy to anything, it never created any two equal things in history, never gave a single life inherent dignity or worth, and can't assign value to anything. No atom in the universe has a moral property. If anything has rights then God grounds them.

 

[columbus]

The right to bodily autonomy is critical and is the basis for every other right we enjoy

This is clearly not true.

Without a gestation nobody has anything, much less rights. Gestation is the basis of everything human.

Tom

 

[leibowde84]

This is clearly not true.

Without a gestation nobody has anything, much less rights. Gestation is the basis of everything human.

Tom

The basis of legal rights genius.

 

[leibowde84]

Ok, if it makes you feel any better about millions of lives ended in the womb we can leave it as the vast majority are for reasons other than the life or physical health of the mother.

In any case where ones autonomy effects another neither has full autonomy. BTW what gave anyone autonomy over anything? Where did we get this miraculous right? No human has them to dispense, rights are things that if justifiable are inherent to our nature and not to be taken away. They are no things which anyone has to distribute to anyone else. If nature is all there is it never granted autonomy to anything, it never created any two equal things in history, never gave a single life inherent dignity or worth, and can't assign value to anything. No atom in the universe has a moral property. If anything has rights then God grounds them.

This is my point. Unless you can address the legal dilemma there is no way abortion will ever be illegal. I agree that abortion is immoral in the cases you describe. But you just ignore the actual issue. Nobody's right to live outweighs another's right to bodily autonomy. And even in a hypothetical legal dream world, that would require a contract with all of the legal requirements that go along with it (offer, acceptance, etc.). There is no judge in the world that would equate that to having sex.

Just ignoring this legal issue or acting confused only hurts your argument.

 

[leibowde84]

Ok, if it makes you feel any better about millions of lives ended in the womb we can leave it as the vast majority are for reasons other than the life or physical health of the mother.

In any case where ones autonomy effects another neither has full autonomy. BTW what gave anyone autonomy over anything? Where did we get this miraculous right? No human has them to dispense, rights are things that if justifiable are inherent to our nature and not to be taken away. They are no things which anyone has to distribute to anyone else. If nature is all there is it never granted autonomy to anything, it never created any two equal things in history, never gave a single life inherent dignity or worth, and can't assign value to anything. No atom in the universe has a moral property. If anything has rights then God grounds them.

What are you even saying with your last paragraph.

Bodily autonomy is the right to dominion over your own physical body (not time money etc.). Women cannot be forced to provide the direct use of their body to another against their will. This is the legal dilemma.

 

[leibowde84]

Ok, if it makes you feel any better about millions of lives ended in the womb we can leave it as the vast majority are for reasons other than the life or physical health of the mother.

In any case where ones autonomy effects another neither has full autonomy. BTW what gave anyone autonomy over anything? Where did we get this miraculous right? No human has them to dispense, rights are things that if justifiable are inherent to our nature and not to be taken away. They are no things which anyone has to distribute to anyone else. If nature is all there is it never granted autonomy to anything, it never created any two equal things in history, never gave a single life inherent dignity or worth, and can't assign value to anything. No atom in the universe has a moral property. If anything has rights then God grounds them.

I love how you assume that I disregard the immorality or the life of the fetus. Very civil. Lol. Seeing how I indicated nothing of the sort. Again, the life of the fetus is not paramount to the rights of the mother simply because it is natural or it has to depend physically on her for nutrients. The sanctity of life cannot infringe on constitutional rights.

 

[dawny0826]

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.

While pregnant, a woman has a human life developing inside of her, whether an individual assigns spirituality or sentience to it prior to birth or not. I too respect a woman's autonomy.

Things get a little fuzzy for me between between 23-27 weeks gestation, when the fetus, if born, has between a 30%-90% chance of survival outside of the womb. By the end of the 2nd trimester, when the odds of survival outside of the womb are 90% and greater, with each day, I do not consider a woman's autonomy of greater importance to a life that can exist apart from her.

A Source: Fetal viability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am quite comfortable with abortion laws in my state, which allow for abortion for any reason, through the second trimester.

-