4 ms·

My state extends the right to bodily autonomy to the unborn.

mindslight 3y ago
That sounds like a euphemism for the persecution of basic medical care based on backwards religious superstition that anything growing where a baby would is assumed to be a human baby. IMO the Democratic Party has totally screwed up with this extremist "pro choice" framing, when the reality is mainly one of non-viable fetuses and only one medically-prudent choice.
- rpmisms 3y ago
  > IMO the Democratic Party has totally screwed up with this extremist "pro choice" framing 100% correct. > backwards religious superstition that anything growing where a baby would is assumed to be a human baby This is absolute bullshit. I'm an Orthodox Christian, extremely conservative, particularly on abortion, and a priest's wife I know had an abortion for an ectopic pregnancy, because it was non-viable and would have killed her. It's simply a matter of believing that the unborn are human and then acting rationally based on this belief. I wish more people could get this—rather reasonable—viewpoint through their thick skulls.
  - mindslight 3y ago
    If this is the basis, why are the laws aimed at criminalizing abortion essentially blanket bans with narrow exceptions rather than based around medical judgement that's equitable between both parties? For example Texas's only viability test is the presence of a periodic electric signal, rather than any consideration of whether the fetus even has the right number of chromosomes. Additionally, even a fetus that seemingly will be eventually viable isn't actually viable for the first few months. From a libertarian perspective, while arguments exist that the mother has consented to this responsibility for some cases, in other cases she has not (eg rape). (Also FWIW your example of an ectopic pregnancy example doesn't actually meet the criteria of "growing where a baby would")
    - rpmisms 3y ago
      > why are the laws aimed at criminalizing abortion essentially blanket bans with narrow exceptions rather than based around medical judgement that's equitable between both parties Because then would-be abortants would simply find a doctor who would sign the correct paperwork. Duh. > whether the fetus even has the right number of chromosomes. So you support eugenics? > From a libertarian perspective, while arguments exist that the mother has consented to this responsibility for some cases, in other cases she has not (eg rape). Abortion, if the fetus is human, violates the non-aggression principle. From a humanist perspective, it wasn't the kid's fault.
      - mindslight 3y ago
        > Because then would-be abortants would simply find a doctor who would sign the correct paperwork That hypothetical doctor would be breaking the law by falsifying paperwork, and could be prosecuted for that. It seems you're arguing that it's necessary for the law to overbearingly criminalize related just behavior (and in this case medically prudent behavior), because of the possibility that law breaking could be fraudulently hidden. I don't buy that sort of argument. > So you support eugenics? Do you have a larger point here, or is equating the acknowledgement of chromosomal abnormalities that are ultimately incompatible with life as "eugenics" just meant to be a rhetorical cheap shot? > Abortion, if the fetus is human, violates the non-aggression principle By the usual framing of the non-aggression principle, I don't see how. Would you say a landlord evicting a tenant violates the non-aggression principle?
        rpmisms 3y ago
        > That hypothetical doctor would be breaking the law by falsifying paperwork, and could be prosecuted for that Doctor/patient privacy is really really strong. > equating the acknowledgement of chromosomal abnormalities that are ultimately incompatible with life ... a rhetorical cheap shot. Depends if you're talking about Down's and related disorders or not. > Would you say a landlord evicting a tenant violates the non-aggression principle? Of course not, eviction is a possible outcome of the contract between the two parties.
vkou 3y ago
By denying it to the mother. Can I move over to your state, and just take a blood transfusion, or an organ from you? I will die without a kidney, and surely you can spare one... My body autonomy is more important than yours, after all, I should be able to make such an imposition on you. My life for a minor inconvenience for you.
- rpmisms 3y ago
  So you should live in a state that values life that way, and I'll live in a state that values life the way I prefer.
  - vkou 3y ago
    The fourth amendment is universally applicable across states. Yours seems to violate it without any internal consistency.
    - rpmisms 3y ago
      Depends on if it's applicable to the unborn. That's a consistent opinion.
      - vkou 3y ago
        I'm asking you to apply to the born the same rights you are willing to apply to a zygote (be it viable or unviable, differentiated or undifferentiated). I need a kidney. You have two. I should be able to violate your body autonomy to protect mine. If a zygote can make this imposition on a woman, why should you have any right to refuse me on this?
        rpmisms 3y ago
        This is a bad-faith argument. Say someone superglues an infant to you in public. Do you have the right to stab the infant? There's a proper equivalent.

That sounds like a euphemism for the persecution of basic medical care based on backwards religious superstition that anything growing where a baby would is assumed to be a human baby. IMO the Democratic Party has totally screwed up with this extremist "pro choice" framing, when the reality is mainly one of non-viable fetuses and only one medically-prudent choice.

rpmisms 3y ago
> IMO the Democratic Party has totally screwed up with this extremist "pro choice" framing 100% correct. > backwards religious superstition that anything growing where a baby would is assumed to be a human baby This is absolute bullshit. I'm an Orthodox Christian, extremely conservative, particularly on abortion, and a priest's wife I know had an abortion for an ectopic pregnancy, because it was non-viable and would have killed her. It's simply a matter of believing that the unborn are human and then acting rationally based on this belief. I wish more people could get this—rather reasonable—viewpoint through their thick skulls.
- mindslight 3y ago
  If this is the basis, why are the laws aimed at criminalizing abortion essentially blanket bans with narrow exceptions rather than based around medical judgement that's equitable between both parties? For example Texas's only viability test is the presence of a periodic electric signal, rather than any consideration of whether the fetus even has the right number of chromosomes. Additionally, even a fetus that seemingly will be eventually viable isn't actually viable for the first few months. From a libertarian perspective, while arguments exist that the mother has consented to this responsibility for some cases, in other cases she has not (eg rape). (Also FWIW your example of an ectopic pregnancy example doesn't actually meet the criteria of "growing where a baby would")
  - rpmisms 3y ago
    > why are the laws aimed at criminalizing abortion essentially blanket bans with narrow exceptions rather than based around medical judgement that's equitable between both parties Because then would-be abortants would simply find a doctor who would sign the correct paperwork. Duh. > whether the fetus even has the right number of chromosomes. So you support eugenics? > From a libertarian perspective, while arguments exist that the mother has consented to this responsibility for some cases, in other cases she has not (eg rape). Abortion, if the fetus is human, violates the non-aggression principle. From a humanist perspective, it wasn't the kid's fault.
    - mindslight 3y ago
      > Because then would-be abortants would simply find a doctor who would sign the correct paperwork That hypothetical doctor would be breaking the law by falsifying paperwork, and could be prosecuted for that. It seems you're arguing that it's necessary for the law to overbearingly criminalize related just behavior (and in this case medically prudent behavior), because of the possibility that law breaking could be fraudulently hidden. I don't buy that sort of argument. > So you support eugenics? Do you have a larger point here, or is equating the acknowledgement of chromosomal abnormalities that are ultimately incompatible with life as "eugenics" just meant to be a rhetorical cheap shot? > Abortion, if the fetus is human, violates the non-aggression principle By the usual framing of the non-aggression principle, I don't see how. Would you say a landlord evicting a tenant violates the non-aggression principle?
      - rpmisms 3y ago
        > That hypothetical doctor would be breaking the law by falsifying paperwork, and could be prosecuted for that Doctor/patient privacy is really really strong. > equating the acknowledgement of chromosomal abnormalities that are ultimately incompatible with life ... a rhetorical cheap shot. Depends if you're talking about Down's and related disorders or not. > Would you say a landlord evicting a tenant violates the non-aggression principle? Of course not, eviction is a possible outcome of the contract between the two parties.

vkou 3y ago

By denying it to the mother. Can I move over to your state, and just take a blood transfusion, or an organ from you? I will die without a kidney, and surely you can spare one... My body autonomy is more important than yours, after all, I should be able to make such an imposition on you. My life for a minor inconvenience for you.

rpmisms 3y ago
So you should live in a state that values life that way, and I'll live in a state that values life the way I prefer.
- vkou 3y ago
  The fourth amendment is universally applicable across states. Yours seems to violate it without any internal consistency.
  - rpmisms 3y ago
    Depends on if it's applicable to the unborn. That's a consistent opinion.
    - vkou 3y ago
      I'm asking you to apply to the born the same rights you are willing to apply to a zygote (be it viable or unviable, differentiated or undifferentiated). I need a kidney. You have two. I should be able to violate your body autonomy to protect mine. If a zygote can make this imposition on a woman, why should you have any right to refuse me on this?
      - rpmisms 3y ago
        This is a bad-faith argument. Say someone superglues an infant to you in public. Do you have the right to stab the infant? There's a proper equivalent.