5 ms·

>No arguments about the legal protections of bodily autonomy, It's not about your body autonomy, it's about taking the life of an unborn child, who clearly doe

>No arguments about the legal protections of bodily autonomy, It's not about your body autonomy, it's about taking the life of an unborn child, who clearly does not not belong to your body as he has a different DNA. If you want body autonomy, you can pull a tooth or cut a finger.

andsoitis 4y ago
If an unborn child is really independent of the mother's body, then you should be able to take it out - it is independent after all! If it doesn't belong to my body, what responsibility do I have for it?
- realjhol 4y ago
  He didn't say it was independent- no child is independent and would survive without adults to depend upon until that child is maybe 16 years old. He said the child is distinct from its mother's body from conception. Which is correct.
anonporridge 4y ago
Do you support the idea of removing the embryo or fetus alive, where child protective services can then try to keep it alive until it can be adopted? Because that's what we do with born children when their parents don't want them.
- realjhol 4y ago
  - anonporridge 4y ago
    So you're holding the well being of poor children (whom everyone agrees are people with rights) hostage for the sake of not yet viable or autonomous fetuses? That seems unbelievably evil.
    - realjhol 4y ago
      - anonporridge 4y ago
        I don't believe non viable or non autonomous fetuses are people. But even if they are, nobody has the right to live if they must be parasitically attached to another person's body, including you or I. Someone can certainly volunteer themselves to save a person in that position, but they can't be legally forced into it. There's an argument to be made that I can agree with that more developed fetuses that are close to birth and can theoretically survive out of the womb should be extracted alive, but abortions of that kind are an extreme minority of all abortions.
        realjhol 4y ago
- josephcsible 4y ago
  As in an emergency C-section? If it's late enough in the pregnancy that doing so wouldn't unnecessarily harm the baby, then I'd think it would be fine.
  - anonporridge 4y ago
    So you believe that if the fetus is incapable of life outside the womb, the woman is legally obligated to keep it parasitically attached to her? That's a new right that no other person has, and you have to legally justify why a fetus has this special right. At what point in pregnancy do you believe a fetus becomes a person deserving of protection under the law that violates a woman's right to bodily autonomy and privacy?
    - josephcsible 4y ago
      > So you believe that if the fetus is incapable of life outside the womb, the woman is legally obligated to keep it parasitically attached to her? That's a new right that no other person has, and you have to legally justify why a fetus has this special right. If you discover a stowaway on your airplane while you're in the air, you're legally obligated to keep him onboard until you land. This isn't a new right, though, it's just his right to life trumping your right to property. > At what point in pregnancy do you believe a fetus becomes a person deserving of protection under the law that violates a woman's right to bodily autonomy and privacy? Fertilization.
      - randomhodler84 4y ago
        Magical thinking. You are dangerously misinformed on the medicine side and overloaded with medieval fantasy. Those of us that actually live in the 21st century just look at your belief structure as naive — however we are now in a different phase where your ignorance is causing real harm. I read today that Drs are too scared to prescribe potentially life saving but potentially teratogenic medicine in forced-birth states due to miscarriage risk. Absolutely unacceptable! Get your medieval bullshit out of our modern world.

andsoitis 4y ago

If an unborn child is really independent of the mother's body, then you should be able to take it out - it is independent after all! If it doesn't belong to my body, what responsibility do I have for it?

realjhol 4y ago
He didn't say it was independent- no child is independent and would survive without adults to depend upon until that child is maybe 16 years old. He said the child is distinct from its mother's body from conception. Which is correct.

anonporridge 4y ago

Do you support the idea of removing the embryo or fetus alive, where child protective services can then try to keep it alive until it can be adopted? Because that's what we do with born children when their parents don't want them.

realjhol 4y ago
- anonporridge 4y ago
  So you're holding the well being of poor children (whom everyone agrees are people with rights) hostage for the sake of not yet viable or autonomous fetuses? That seems unbelievably evil.
  - realjhol 4y ago
    - anonporridge 4y ago
      I don't believe non viable or non autonomous fetuses are people. But even if they are, nobody has the right to live if they must be parasitically attached to another person's body, including you or I. Someone can certainly volunteer themselves to save a person in that position, but they can't be legally forced into it. There's an argument to be made that I can agree with that more developed fetuses that are close to birth and can theoretically survive out of the womb should be extracted alive, but abortions of that kind are an extreme minority of all abortions.
      - realjhol 4y ago
josephcsible 4y ago
As in an emergency C-section? If it's late enough in the pregnancy that doing so wouldn't unnecessarily harm the baby, then I'd think it would be fine.
- anonporridge 4y ago
  So you believe that if the fetus is incapable of life outside the womb, the woman is legally obligated to keep it parasitically attached to her? That's a new right that no other person has, and you have to legally justify why a fetus has this special right. At what point in pregnancy do you believe a fetus becomes a person deserving of protection under the law that violates a woman's right to bodily autonomy and privacy?
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    > So you believe that if the fetus is incapable of life outside the womb, the woman is legally obligated to keep it parasitically attached to her? That's a new right that no other person has, and you have to legally justify why a fetus has this special right. If you discover a stowaway on your airplane while you're in the air, you're legally obligated to keep him onboard until you land. This isn't a new right, though, it's just his right to life trumping your right to property. > At what point in pregnancy do you believe a fetus becomes a person deserving of protection under the law that violates a woman's right to bodily autonomy and privacy? Fertilization.
    - randomhodler84 4y ago
      Magical thinking. You are dangerously misinformed on the medicine side and overloaded with medieval fantasy. Those of us that actually live in the 21st century just look at your belief structure as naive — however we are now in a different phase where your ignorance is causing real harm. I read today that Drs are too scared to prescribe potentially life saving but potentially teratogenic medicine in forced-birth states due to miscarriage risk. Absolutely unacceptable! Get your medieval bullshit out of our modern world.