3 ms·

>You make the common claim that laws preventing people from doing things to others without their consent are no different from laws preventing a person from rec

>You make the common claim that laws preventing people from doing things to others without their consent are no different from laws preventing a person from receiving medical treatment of their own body. Well there is a second body during abortions as well. The fetus has a body. Unless you think a woman grows an extra 2 arms and legs. A woman also has 2 hearts and 2 sets of gentials? >It does reduce the number of abortions a small amount, and it also increases the number of women who die during them, when they get them anyway. I think protecting the most innocent and vulnerable amongst us is more important than a person who will take a dangerous action. It isn't an ideal situation but you have to choose one to protect. At least artificial wombs are starting to be a thing and may prevent this issue in the future. >What actually reduces abortions is reducing pregnancy in the first place. Something that has been repeatedly shown is achieved through provision of birth control, and actual sex education. Doing that results in a much greater reduction in abortions, and doesn't come at the cost of killing women. In terms of birth control, some (not sure the percentage) are abortive. They allow conception but prevent the implantation. This is on reason why some are opposed to some birth control. Like I said in my previous post, we live in a two party system. We don't live in a system where you can vote for additional things like this and restricting abortion. You can't just say prolifers don't vote for these things because there is no other choice for them. >I honestly don't know what you're trying to say here? No one has removed anyone's rights to their baby - again, the only right being removed here is a woman's bodily autonomy. I believe if you are not granted protection from being killed than any other right is secondary. You can't exercise any other right if you are dead. When 99% of abortions are not due to rape it is hard to justify removing another person's (the baby's) rights when the other person (the mother) consented to an action whose sole biological purpose is procreation. >In fact, by forcing women to carry unsafe pregnancies to term you may end up forcing them into sterility. So not only did you remove their right to abortion, you remove their ability to have children later. Abortions can also lead to sterilization as well. >The arguments you are making take the color of "pro-choicers want abortions", which is a standard lie promoted by pro-lifers. The states that are electively pro-choice are also the states that provide contraception, birth control, some semblance of sex ed - things that actually reduce abortions. Like I said, prolifers have no option to vote for someone who will restrict abortion while expanding the other things. >I do not understand why you think I have not tried to understand. I understand your position very clearly. It is not complex. You refuse to understand that a fetus is another person that has rights and just say prolifers only want to control woman. It sure sounds like you don't understand. >You believe abortion is wrong, and therefore you believe that it doesn't matter what a woman may believe, that they should not have bodily autonomy. I believe a woman has full autonomy over her body, just not the foetus' body. >Currently this is limited to abortion, but given you believe that women do not have any constitutional right to bodily autonomy, there is no reason you cannot decide that woman should lose other rights in future. And you wonder why I say you don't understand the other side. >I am not being facetious, and I am not being hysterical. Debatable. >Numerous governments, left and right wing, liberal and conservative, have at numerous points in history determined that women should be involuntarily sterilized (which I guess stops abortions, so yay?) for a variety of reasons - that were mentally ill, gay, non-white, ... In the US, which we are talking about, this was almost entirely on the left. Eugenics was quite a popular fad with progressives. Regardless, I think pretty much everyone now is opposed to forced sterilization. Some places have forced abortions. It isn't relevant to the discussion. >See, the problem is that once you say someone does not have bodily autonomy, then you have stated that the government has permission to control those victim's bodies. >It's not "just one thing", the debate about abortion is the debate over whether a woman gets a say in what happens to her body. I fully agree. That is why I believe babies should have equal rights. What is stopping a government from removing rights from infants, toddlers or even adults if you can remove rights from babies? This hill we are on sure seems slippery. >The pro-life position is that women do not. The prochoice position is that babies do not have rights.

olliej 4y ago
A fetus is not a person, for the vast majority of the time they lack any organs at all. However even if we do take a position of a fetus being a person, no one has the right to force anyone to undertake any medical procedure for anyone else's benefit. We can perhaps make this easier to grasp if we go to post-birth. Let's say a baby is born with kidney failure. Can the government force the mother or father to donate their kidney? If not, why not? Current law says no, the parent cannot be forced into surgery, but your above definition seems to make the parents murderers? We know of cases where people have additional children solely to get organs for earlier children, and currently we recognize that those children have rights so they can say no. But maybe you disagree with that? after all, them saying no kills the earlier child. > What is stopping a government from removing rights from infants, toddlers or even adults if you can remove rights from babies? The question is "can the government force someone to undertake medical procedures", currently (at least prior to the GOP corruption of the Supreme Court) the answer is no. Your grand plan has now change the rules so medical procedures can be forced. So you're right it does seem slippery: we can force women to undertake one medical procedure, can we force parents to undertake medical procedures if they can save their children? can parents force children to undertake procedures to save earlier children? One side of this argument is forced medical procedures, the other is not. One is women having bodily autonomy, one side is them not. One side is trying to reduce the need for abortions, the other side punishing women who get pregnant.
- _-david-_ 4y ago
  >A fetus is not a person, It is a person. This is why we are talking past each other on most of these posts. >for the vast majority of the time they lack any organs at all. This is just not true. Please tell me when the brain and heart form. It is well before the halfway point. Also, some people are born without organs or without properly functioning organs. Some people lose their organs later in life. They are still persons, at least I think they are. >However even if we do take a position of a fetus being a person, no one has the right to force anyone to undertake any medical procedure for anyone else's benefit. I wouldn't call it a medical procedure but a natural process that is medicalized (is that a word?). In 99% of abortions the woman chose to take the action whose sole biological purpose is pregnancy so this isn't really a forced medical procedure in those case. If you are not willing to risk getting a speeding ticket don't speed. You can't kill the police officer giving you a speeding ticket to get out of the consequences of your actions. The speeding ticket requires you to lose property rights to pay the ticket. Nobody denies this, but when it comes to pregnancy people take the opposite position. If you are not willing to risk getting pregnant don't have sex. You can't kill the baby just like you can't kill the police officer. You lose your property rights (paying fine) just like you temporarily lose the ability to do a certain action (abortion). It is no different. >We can perhaps make this easier to grasp if we go to post-birth. >Let's say a baby is born with kidney failure. Can the government force the mother or father to donate their kidney? If not, why not? Current law says no, the parent cannot be forced into surgery, but your above definition seems to make the parents murderers? It is not the same situation since letting somebody die is not the same as deliberately hiring somebody to killing them. I can make an analogy that isn't really related as well. After a baby has been born parents should be allowed to starve the baby since the parents have property rights. They should not be forced to pay for food for the baby. Current law says you can't do that. >We know of cases where people have additional children solely to get organs for earlier children, and currently we recognize that those children have rights so they can say no. But maybe you disagree with that? after all, them saying no kills the earlier child. I am not a fan of this. Having a kids to deliberately harvest organs is wrong, but like I said above, I don't think the situation is the same. I would say that the prochoice side should be in favor of having this legal. If a mother can do a medical procedure that will kill their child in the womb why can't they do a medical procedure on the child outside the womb? Especially since neither of the medical procedures are medically necessary for the baby. >The question is "can the government force someone to undertake medical procedures", currently (at least prior to the GOP corruption of the Supreme Court) the answer is no. This is just not true. The state government can force you to get vaccinated. Maybe you oppose that, but it has been precedent for over 100 years (Jacobson v. Massachusetts). The federal government can also draft you (a violation of bodily autonomy) then force you to get vaccines since you are in the military. Also, this happens only to men, so it is similar to pregnancy only happening to women. All levels of the government can arrest you which removes your bodily autonomy. Bodily autonomy is not 100% just like any other right. There are situations where you do not get to have that right. I am not going to address the rest of your post since it is all the same. I have just showed you that the government can currently and has forced medical procedures on individuals and removed bodily autonomy and nobody cares.

olliej 4y ago

A fetus is not a person, for the vast majority of the time they lack any organs at all. However even if we do take a position of a fetus being a person, no one has the right to force anyone to undertake any medical procedure for anyone else's benefit. We can perhaps make this easier to grasp if we go to post-birth. Let's say a baby is born with kidney failure. Can the government force the mother or father to donate their kidney? If not, why not? Current law says no, the parent cannot be forced into surgery, but your above definition seems to make the parents murderers? We know of cases where people have additional children solely to get organs for earlier children, and currently we recognize that those children have rights so they can say no. But maybe you disagree with that? after all, them saying no kills the earlier child. > What is stopping a government from removing rights from infants, toddlers or even adults if you can remove rights from babies? The question is "can the government force someone to undertake medical procedures", currently (at least prior to the GOP corruption of the Supreme Court) the answer is no. Your grand plan has now change the rules so medical procedures can be forced. So you're right it does seem slippery: we can force women to undertake one medical procedure, can we force parents to undertake medical procedures if they can save their children? can parents force children to undertake procedures to save earlier children? One side of this argument is forced medical procedures, the other is not. One is women having bodily autonomy, one side is them not. One side is trying to reduce the need for abortions, the other side punishing women who get pregnant.

_-david-_ 4y ago
>A fetus is not a person, It is a person. This is why we are talking past each other on most of these posts. >for the vast majority of the time they lack any organs at all. This is just not true. Please tell me when the brain and heart form. It is well before the halfway point. Also, some people are born without organs or without properly functioning organs. Some people lose their organs later in life. They are still persons, at least I think they are. >However even if we do take a position of a fetus being a person, no one has the right to force anyone to undertake any medical procedure for anyone else's benefit. I wouldn't call it a medical procedure but a natural process that is medicalized (is that a word?). In 99% of abortions the woman chose to take the action whose sole biological purpose is pregnancy so this isn't really a forced medical procedure in those case. If you are not willing to risk getting a speeding ticket don't speed. You can't kill the police officer giving you a speeding ticket to get out of the consequences of your actions. The speeding ticket requires you to lose property rights to pay the ticket. Nobody denies this, but when it comes to pregnancy people take the opposite position. If you are not willing to risk getting pregnant don't have sex. You can't kill the baby just like you can't kill the police officer. You lose your property rights (paying fine) just like you temporarily lose the ability to do a certain action (abortion). It is no different. >We can perhaps make this easier to grasp if we go to post-birth. >Let's say a baby is born with kidney failure. Can the government force the mother or father to donate their kidney? If not, why not? Current law says no, the parent cannot be forced into surgery, but your above definition seems to make the parents murderers? It is not the same situation since letting somebody die is not the same as deliberately hiring somebody to killing them. I can make an analogy that isn't really related as well. After a baby has been born parents should be allowed to starve the baby since the parents have property rights. They should not be forced to pay for food for the baby. Current law says you can't do that. >We know of cases where people have additional children solely to get organs for earlier children, and currently we recognize that those children have rights so they can say no. But maybe you disagree with that? after all, them saying no kills the earlier child. I am not a fan of this. Having a kids to deliberately harvest organs is wrong, but like I said above, I don't think the situation is the same. I would say that the prochoice side should be in favor of having this legal. If a mother can do a medical procedure that will kill their child in the womb why can't they do a medical procedure on the child outside the womb? Especially since neither of the medical procedures are medically necessary for the baby. >The question is "can the government force someone to undertake medical procedures", currently (at least prior to the GOP corruption of the Supreme Court) the answer is no. This is just not true. The state government can force you to get vaccinated. Maybe you oppose that, but it has been precedent for over 100 years (Jacobson v. Massachusetts). The federal government can also draft you (a violation of bodily autonomy) then force you to get vaccines since you are in the military. Also, this happens only to men, so it is similar to pregnancy only happening to women. All levels of the government can arrest you which removes your bodily autonomy. Bodily autonomy is not 100% just like any other right. There are situations where you do not get to have that right. I am not going to address the rest of your post since it is all the same. I have just showed you that the government can currently and has forced medical procedures on individuals and removed bodily autonomy and nobody cares.