• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"Controlling her body"

moon1336

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2016
Messages
9
Reaction score
5
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What I wanna know is where is the connection with killing the unborn in how it has to do with "controlling her body?"
If a woman is pregnant and doesn't get an abortion, wouldn't you find it problematic if she drank and smoke during the entire pregnancy, knowing the serious health risks in which it cause upon her child?
 
Problematic because she is still carrying a child to term with the risks.

And yet it's still her right because it is her body and the fetus inside her body is not a person that is deserving of rights superior to those granted the mother.
 
What I wanna know is where is the connection with killing the unborn in how it has to do with "controlling her body?"
...

A right to privacy is not about what women can and cannot do with their bodies.
It is a privacy right regarding family choice . There are a few privacy zones protected by the Constitution, including but not limited to marriage, child rearing, contraception , and legal elective abortions within the parameters of Roe vs Wade.

Perhaps this will explain the Constitutional Right to Privacy and the zones to which it applies a little better.

Constitutional Rights

The right to privacy often means the right to personal autonomy, or the right to choose whether or not to engage in certain acts or have certain experiences. Several amendments to the U.S. Constitution have been used in varying degrees of success in determining a right to personal autonomy:

The First Amendment protects the privacy of beliefs
The Third Amendment protects the privacy of the home against the use of it for housing soldiers
The Fourth Amendment protects privacy against unreasonable searches
The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination, which in turn protects the privacy of personal information
The Ninth Amendment says that the "enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." This has been interpreted as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.
The right to privacy is most often cited in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, which states:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

However, the protections have been narrowly defined and usually only pertain to family, marriage, motherhood, procreation and child rearing.


For example, the Supreme Court first recognized that the various Bill of Rights guarantees creates a "zone of privacy" in Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 ruling that upheld marital privacy and struck down bans on contraception.

Right to Privacy: Constitutional Rights & Privacy Laws
 
Last edited:
If a woman is pregnant and doesn't get an abortion, wouldn't you find it problematic if she drank and smoke during the entire pregnancy, knowing the serious health risks in which it cause upon her child?

Yes, it is factually medically 'problematic' and IMO ethically so as well.
 
What I wanna know is where is the connection with killing the unborn in how it has to do with "controlling her body?"

I suggest you do some research on the reproductive system. The role of the woman's body in the process is pretty ****ing obvious.

If a woman is pregnant and doesn't get an abortion, wouldn't you find it problematic if she drank and smoke during the entire pregnancy, knowing the serious health risks in which it cause upon her child?

Yes, I would find it problematic-- if she intended to carry the child to term, why would she harm it in the womb? But I would not attempt to impose laws against it because that would be a violation of her rights.

Of course, I also think children born with serious health problems should be euthanized.
 
What I wanna know is where is the connection with killing the unborn in how it has to do with "controlling her body?"
If a woman is pregnant and doesn't get an abortion, wouldn't you find it problematic if she drank and smoke during the entire pregnancy, knowing the serious health risks in which it cause upon her child?

Problematic is a soft word for it , more like irresponsible and negligent. nevertheless you cannot force someone to behave as they should.. if that is what you mean by controlling her body.
 
What I wanna know is where is the connection with killing the unborn in how it has to do with "controlling her body?"
it is more than her body, it is the care of the resulting child...but none the less some believe due to their belief system that they have not only the right but must force her to carry it to term...who are they to do that? use her body to produce what they erroneously believe is a human being with rights


If a woman is pregnant and doesn't get an abortion, wouldn't you find it problematic if she drank and smoke during the entire pregnancy, knowing the serious health risks in which it cause upon her child?
fetal alcohol syndrome, and/or babies born with drug addiction

the part that infuriates me is most of those on the "force her to give birth side" then want to abandon this baby to it's physical and mental and emotional impairment and leave this actual human being to a life of struggle and despair but do they want to pay the hundreds of thousands a year that these kids need to support them...hell no

to me, that is the saddest thing in the whole world, the suffering that individual will endure for the rest of their life

so many people have a limited understanding of psychology or care for others when it involves their "tax dollars"

that is sickening beyond belief but they label themselves pro-life

that is not life

and why are the people who label themselves as pro-life the most miserable, unkind, judgemental, autocratic individuals one could possible meet

not certain really

why is that
 
Problematic because she is still carrying a child to term with the risks.

And yet it's still her right because it is her body and the fetus inside her body is not a person that is deserving of rights superior to those granted the mother.

Wrong. What we are not doing is respecting the body and life of a baby. But the push back that the left uses as a defense is this;

>> "the fetus inside her body is not a person that is deserving of rights superior to those granted the mother. :"

.. which is cleqrly wrong, but being wrong doesn't bother some people, and that means that the iron wall of will power and resistance doesn't waiver, or weakens.

Not from righteousness, and the desire to help, but from stubbornness.
 
A right to privacy is not about what women can and cannot do with their bodies.
It is a privacy right regarding family choice . There are a few privacy zones protected by the Constitution, including but not limited to marriage, child rearing, contraception , and legal elective abortions within the parameters of Roe vs Wade.

Perhaps this will explain the Constitutional Right to Privacy and the zones to which it applies a little better.



Right to Privacy: Constitutional Rights & Privacy Laws

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is how a document, which free people fought and died for, from a desire to be free is now being used to put to death the little ones struggling to survive. And what ever happens, there will always be the defenders of abortion. The never go away until they win. Something impossible to win. And that's when the iron wall of will power never dies, struggling to win against their political betters, against all reason. And the sheer will power will always carry on. Wrong, weak, and evil. No win is possible for them, but that doesn't stop them.
 
>> "the fetus inside her body is not a person that is deserving of rights superior to those granted the mother. :"

.. which is cleqrly wrong, but being wrong doesn't bother some people, and that means that the iron wall of will power and resistance doesn't waiver, or weakens.

How is it "wrong" that the rights of the unborn child do not supercede the rights of the woman it is occupying?
 
How is it "wrong" that the rights of the unborn child do not supercede the rights of the woman it is occupying?

How is it right? The child who has rights, is being killed. How is that right?

You liberals don't even have the sense that any good person would have when confronted with the fact that human beings are being killed and all of you even come to abotions defense as if it needed it. The facts about babies dying don't even affect you, and you even change facts to fit your def.ense of abortion. But none of you even face the truth and blanket the truth with lie's so that you can keep doing it.

And that doesn't make sense! So your question comes to me like a joke. I refuse to answer such dumb questions based on lies.
 
I suggest you do some research on the reproductive system. The role of the woman's body in the process is pretty ****ing obvious.



Yes, I would find it problematic-- if she intended to carry the child to term, why would she harm it in the womb? But I would not attempt to impose laws against it because that would be a violation of her rights.

Of course, I also think children born with serious health problems should be euthanized.

You think? well you can call it thinking if you want to, but I do not.
 
How is it right? The child who has rights, is being killed. How is that right?

Because it's using another persons' body against her will. Or do women not have rights in your worldview?

You liberals don't even have the sense that any good person would have when confronted with the fact that human beings are being killed and all of you even come to abotions defense as if it needed it.

You misogynists don't even have the sense that any good person would have when confronted with the fact that women have the same basic human rights as men do, and forced gestation violates those rights. Don't get self-righteous with me when you're advocating for the enslavement of half the human race.
 
Wrong. What we are not doing is respecting the body and life of a baby. But the push back that the left uses as a defense is this;

>> "the fetus inside her body is not a person that is deserving of rights superior to those granted the mother. :"

.. which is cleqrly wrong, but being wrong doesn't bother some people, and that means that the iron wall of will power and resistance doesn't waiver, or weakens.

Not from righteousness, and the desire to help, but from stubbornness.

"When you have to use 'clearly,' the argument is probably not so clear."
 
How is it right? The child who has rights, is being killed. How is that right?

You liberals don't even have the sense that any good person would have when confronted with the fact that human beings are being killed and all of you even come to abotions defense as if it needed it. The facts about babies dying don't even affect you, and you even change facts to fit your def.ense of abortion. But none of you even face the truth and blanket the truth with lie's so that you can keep doing it.

And that doesn't make sense! So your question comes to me like a joke. I refuse to answer such dumb questions based on lies.



I find it very interesting liberals find what should be the REAL safe space in the womb problematic, but think things which are not problematic(free speech) need to be locked down by safe spaces.
 
Problematic is a soft word for it , more like irresponsible and negligent. nevertheless you cannot force someone to behave as they should.. if that is what you mean by controlling her body.

So, if you saw mother shaking her infant, you would just stand there and say, "well i can't control her?" No you wouldn't. So why aren't you outrage about abortion which is murder?
 
A right to privacy is not about what women can and cannot do with their bodies.
It is a privacy right regarding family choice . There are a few privacy zones protected by the Constitution, including but not limited to marriage, child rearing, contraception , and legal elective abortions within the parameters of Roe vs Wade.

Perhaps this will explain the Constitutional Right to Privacy and the zones to which it applies a little better.



Right to Privacy: Constitutional Rights & Privacy Laws


If a parent is obligated to take care of their child and raise them then yes a mother has an obligation to go through a pregnancy as that child has equal rights to life therefore a mothers life choices do not trump their life.
 
So, if you saw mother shaking her infant, you would just stand there and say, "well i can't control her?" No you wouldn't. So why aren't you outrage about abortion which is murder?

Abortion is not murder, it is lawful self-defense. If I saw a mother shaking her baby, I would stop her, but it would probably be too late.
 
If a parent is obligated to take care of their child and raise them then yes a mother has an obligation to go through a pregnancy as that child has equal rights to life therefore a mothers life choices do not trump their life.

Women are not obligated to take care of their of the child in the US. They have the option of giving a newborn up for adoption.
US women may choose within the parameters of Roe v Wade whether or not to continue a pregnancy.
 
If a parent is obligated to take care of their child and raise them then yes a mother has an obligation to go through a pregnancy as that child has equal rights to life therefore a mothers life choices do not trump their life.

Let me guess, you're a man. Am I right?
 
Let me guess, you're a man. Am I right?

And let me guess you're going to say "You're a man, you don't have a uterus, so keep your mouth closed."

If pro-aborts like yourself can use the physical uterus part to denote a woman, then why do they not use the physical existence of the unborn to denote a child?
 
Because it's using another persons' body against her will. Or do women not have rights in your worldview?



You misogynists don't even have the sense that any good person would have when confronted with the fact that women have the same basic human rights as men do, and forced gestation violates those rights. Don't get self-righteous with me when you're advocating for the enslavement of half the human race.


He has clearly written that women come second and that when it comes to the unborn, women's rights dont matter. I used to have that quote in my signature.
 
If a parent is obligated to take care of their child and raise them then yes a mother has an obligation to go through a pregnancy as that child has equal rights to life therefore a mothers life choices do not trump their life.

Where is that written? Ethically or legally that there is an 'obligation.' If the mother finds a better situation for the child (like a relative or adoption), she's not doing anything wrong. (IMO)

With a child, there is always someone else that can care for the child if needed.

The unborn has no rights, much less 'equal' rights. Not legally (factually) nor ethically IMO.

Lursa said:
The unborn cannot exercise any rights independently. None. Before birth it has no rights that can be separated from the mother (physically, legally, ethically, practically). It's a dependency that truly demonstrates that it is not equal.
 
Last edited:
If a parent is obligated to take care of their child and raise them then yes a mother has an obligation to go through a pregnancy as that child has equal rights to life therefore a mothers life choices do not trump their life.

Prove it (that the unborn have a right to life).
 
Back
Top Bottom