• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Fallacy of Unrestricted Body Sovereignty

Felicity

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Just a few thoughts to counter the supposed “preeminent right to bodily sovereignty” purported by some pro-choicers.

Unrestricted Body Sovereignty does not exist as evidenced by:

  • I don’t own my body because I can’t sell my body parts.
  • I can’t give away life sustaining parts, either.
  • If I violate some aspect of the “social contract”, my body can be jailed against my will.
  • I can be committed to a psychiatric facility against my will.
  • If I try to commit suicide, I’ll likely be required to receive treatment even if it’s against my will.
  • I was required to physically submit to scholastic education for 13 years—trust me, it was against my will.
  • Vaccinations are compelled upon the population.
  • I can’t decide to not clothe my own body.
  • I can’t smoke on the streets of New York.
  • I can’t ingest any drug I choose.
  • I can’t starve myself without eventual intervention compelling me to eat.
  • If I am reasonably suspected of a crime--even if I am innocent--I can be compelled to give DNA
  • Men can be compelled to submit to paternity testing.
This is just a quick list...any more ideas?
 
Last edited:



No individual or entity can stop me, you, or anyone else from doing any one of these things, right this minute (or any time we choose).
Nobody can force you to eat if you wish to starve yourself; people starve themselves to death daily. The state has no power to commit them or force nourishment upon them. Nobody can physically force anyone to submit to a vaccine; nobody can physically restrain men and force them to submit to paternity testing, and nobody can physically restrain women and force them to give birth.
Any of the above amounts to rape.
I'd like to see them try. :lamo

You say one can be "compelled" to submit to these things.
"Compelled" to the extent that state and government entities can tell one to comply? So what? That doesn't mean one has to comply.
If I tell you to go jump off a bridge, am I compelling you to do it?
If the government tells unwilling young men to pick up guns and go fight in some war, are the compelling them to do it?
Can the government force young men to pick up guns and kill Vietnamese/Iraqis/whatever?
No. Nobody can force you to kill anybody. Nobody can force anybody to touch a gun under any circumstances, if that isn't what they want to do.
The government can levy civil punishments and penalties (such as jail or fines) against those who choose not to comply with their directives; however, even in prison, one's human rights- although not one's civil rights- are still in effect, and one still has the right to bodily sovereignty (detainment camps like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo are a different story, and that is why they are so troubling from a human rights perspective. Camps where systematic rape, torture, and other government-sanctioned human rights violations are occurring are extremely troubling to the global community; like the nazi concentration and extermination camps of the 1930s and 40s, it is likely that the world will eventually have to take a stand against the atrocities that are occurring in such places).

But, concentration/detainee camps aside, what do you mean when you say one can be compelled to give up one's bodily sovereignty? "Compelled" to submit to a paternity test, etc?
Compelled, in some cases, to the extent that one may be subject to imprisonment or fines if one chooses not to comply?
So what?
That still doesn't mean one has to comply.
Those are only civil penalties; they do not effect human rights.
No individual, state, or government entity has the power to force one to comply.
That is because human rights are inherent. They begin at birth and end at death.
The government does not bestow them (unlike civil rights, which the government does bestow).
Therefore, the government does not have the power to take them away (again, unlike civil rights).
 
Way to retry the ol "We already impose restrictions on your body" argument, :yawn:

I thought you came up with something good for me this time. By the way, your wanting to go further down a slippery slope isn't identifying a fallacy.

Felicity said:
# I can’t decide to not clothe my own body.
# I can’t starve myself without eventual intervention compelling me to eat.
# I don’t own my body because I can’t sell my body parts.
# I can’t smoke on the streets of New York.
Click to expand...

What New York are you talking about?

Felicity said:
# I can’t ingest any drug I choose.
Click to expand...

:lamo :funny
 
Lachean said:
Felicity said:
I can't ingest any drug I choose
Click to expand...


:lamo :funny
Click to expand...

No sh!t. Talk about paranoia. :roll:

Why can't you "ingest any drug you choose"?
You can ingest drain cleaner, if you choose.
What's to prevent you from ingesting any drug?
What's going to happen if you ingest an illegal drug?
Is your throat going to close up?
Is a DEA officer going to pop out of your bedroom closet, drag you over to the toilet, and force you to vomit the drug up?
At worst, if you're caught purchasing illegal drugs, civil penalties might be enforced; you might have to pay a fine or go to jail, where... guess what? You can still obtain and ingest any drug you choose.

You're mixing up civil rights (legal rights bestowed by the government) with human rights, which are inherent and which no government has the legal power or authority to take away. Violation of human rights constitutes an atrocity, and violators of human rights face far-reaching, often international or even global consequences.
 
Last edited:
Felicity?
I just thought of a good way you can tell the difference between civil and human rights, if you're confused about it.
It is sometimes necessary and appropriate (for the good of society, and in order to protect the human rights of others, which invariably take precedence to civil rights) to take away some or all of an individual's civil rights, either temporarily or permanently.
Or sometimes it's even necessary and appropriate to temporarily restrict everybody's civil rights, as in wartime or in a national state of emergency.
But it is never necessary, appropriate, legitimate, warranted, or acceptable to any civilized society to violate anyone's human rights, for any reason.

Take a convicted child molestor, for instance; we can take away some of his civil rights; we can take away his right to own a firearm, maybe his right to vote, possibly even enforce some curfew about what times he's allowed to be out (probation or parole for those convicted of child sexual assault sometimes involves rules about them having to be in after dark) or where he can work (not with children), or where he can live (not within a ___ radius of a school, etc).
It is necessary to restrict his civil rights, in order to protect the human rights of the innocent populace; ie, children's right not to be sexually assaulted.
What we can't do is violate his human rights, however.
We can't, for instance, castrate him. Or physically restrain him. Or beat him. Or rape him. Or torture him. Or force him to take drugs. Or tattoo "Warning: Child Molestor" on his forehead, or anywhere else on his body. Or encase him in some kind of chastity-belt contraption, so he can't get his genitals free to molest children with.
While we can imprison him, all of his human rights are still in effect while in prison, as are some- but by no means all- of his civil rights.

The sole exceptions to this rule are euthanasia and capital punishment; we as a society are not universally comfortable with either, as evidenced by our flip-flopping laws governing these matters; we uneasily justify our continued implementation of them by agreeing that life itself is not an inherent human right... but that it is a human right that death be administered swiftly and humanely, without undue pain, distress, or degradation.
 
Last edited:
Lachean said:
Way to retry the ol "We already impose restrictions on your body" argument, :yawn:
Click to expand...
It's merely to point out that there are perfectly valid reasons to suspend an individual's personal ubiquitous control over what they do or do not do with his/her body. Many relate to the social contract that is assumed by living in a particular society or simply they are assumed by being "social" creatures. The right to bodily soverignty has been presented (specifically by 1069) as THE overarching first right enjoyed by mankind. This is simply false. Bodily soverignty can be abridged in numerous ways and for numerous reasons.

The claim to bodily soverignty, as it relates to the abortion question, is invalid becase a behavior choice leads to the existence of another when conception occurs in a woman's womb. When this occurs, there is also a "contract" that is assumed by the woman. Even if abortion is her choice--she is still acting according to that assumed contract, she is pregnant--she does act in response to that reality--, so one cannot deny that there is a sort of contract formed. I argue, however, that as with all contracts, there is not simply a responsibility for the human conceived, but also a responsibility TO the human conceived. Killing that human to negate the contract is never correct.

Further, as the human in the womb is a different being than the mother, he or she ALSO has just as much right to bodily soverignty as the mother. Basically, the occupant of the womb has a right to his/her bodily integrity and cannot (should not) be compelled to sacrifice his/her life at the whim or desire of another even if that other happens to be his/her mother.
 
Lachean said:
Way to retry the ol "We already impose restrictions on your body" argument, :yawn:

I thought you came up with something good for me this time. By the way, your wanting to go further down a slippery slope isn't identifying a fallacy.
Click to expand...
The argument isn't slippery slope, the argument is that societally, we have granted government the right to impose restrictions on how we use our body. It's interesting how those posting here claiming that government has no right to impose restrictions on the use of one's own body aren't leaving 100's of messages on other parts of the forum arguing that heroine use should be legalized. That's not to say that you physically cannot use heroine, but government has a role in preventing people from using it and making its use illegal. Bodily Sovereignty is not an Unalienable Right protected from government intervention.
 
chemical castration: Information from Answers.com
Chemical Castration in the United States
According to Jeffrey Kirchmeier, at least six states have experimented with chemical castration laws in the United States. Those states are California, Florida, Georgia, Texas, Louisiana, and Montana. California was the first state to use chemical castration as a punishment for pedophilia. In California, judges may require first-time offenders to undergo chemical castration. After a second offense treatment is mandatory.[1] In Iowa and Florida chemical castration is available in all cases involving serious sex offenses. As in California treatment is mandatory after a second offense. [2] [3]

ALSO...it's not a tatoo on their forehead, but you can "out" sex offenders--indefinitely.
National Sex Offender Registry
NM&L (Winter 2000): Sex-offender registry laws withstand privacy challenges


Your position on bodily soverignty is most assuredly intermingled with the "civil" liberties of humans. Since humans live in societies--it's part of the nature of our "being"--of course civil rights are dependant upon--born out of--the human rights. That is why abridging the inherent human rights of individuals in a society must be for valid civil purposes. I'm not the one who is confused, 1069--you are, as usual. There is valid civil interest in abridging a person's right to bodily soverignty in MANY cases and for many reasons.
 
I do like the angle that Felicity is going for. However, I do agree that there is a mixture of human rights v civil rights/liberties intermingst. Major human rights groups have protested chemical castration for example. Additionally, I'm worried that we are confusing what certain parts of the nation do, and what the government does, with what they should do and what that means. The implications are where I'm bothered. Since this is in the abortion forum and the negative implication in the first post about "pro-choicers", I fear that this argument is being used to justify the state control over a pregancy.

This is where I think the fallacy lies. Assuming that this is the goal of this post, then I assume that Felicity is also in favor of 1.) EVERYTHING on the list and 2.) governmental intervention in unpleasant manners.

The first part I think is a very reasonable burden that Felicity must uphold. If s/he (sorry, I don't know really anything about you) considers this as a valid position, then this position must be defended. However, if there is anything on this list that s/he does not agree with, then s/he must indict this mindset as unjust, which drastically weakens the position it holds as a justification for an option other than the overly simplified "pro-choice".

The second position is dependent on the fact that Felicity does consider this a valid argument. If there is no body sovereignty, can the government/state violate it at will? Your argument implies that they can. Can they mandate that every pregnant woman take x vitamin during pregnancy? If so, then they should also have a say on where the birth can take place, hospital x. If that is also the case, they should have a say in when the birth should happen, if nothing else to make scheduling easier. If they have the power to determine when, can they determine whether? I would certainly think so. If the state can decide when and where, they can also deny all of the above. The only way to do this is to either prevent the pregancy with a mandated contraceptive/castration method (eugenics anyone?) or terminate the pregnancy. The latter clearly goes against the initial goal of Felicity.

Granted, these arguments seem unlikely, but every one is justified under the mindset of restricted body sovereignty. Yes yes yes, civil liberties group would fight it, but in a world where we can take this matter to its extreme, this is where it ends. Since these consequences have not been seen in the status quo (or attempted), then there must be unrestricted body sovereignty.
 
Amused said:
intermingst.
Click to expand...
That's a new word--I like it!

The implications are where I'm bothered. Since this is in the abortion forum and the negative implication in the first post about "pro-choicers", I fear that this argument is being used to justify the state control over a pregancy.
Click to expand...
No--this is not intended to go there. Merely this is to counter the oft repeated nonsense that the right to bodily soveriegnty trumps the right to life. 1069 says BdySov is the preeminant right often enough and I just thought it time to address the issue.


This is where I think the fallacy lies. Assuming that this is the goal of this post, then I assume that Felicity is also in favor of 1.) EVERYTHING on the list and 2.) governmental intervention in unpleasant manners.
Click to expand...
Actually...I'm not in favor of all the things on that list...I'm against mandatory vaccinations and unnecesary government intervention into our lives like the smoking laws, I am also ambivalent about drug laws.

The first part I think is a very reasonable burden that Felicity must uphold. If s/he (sorry, I don't know really anything about you) considers this as a valid position, then this position must be defended.
Click to expand...
I simply presented the info to counter a claim, not to express a position. (She is the proper pronoun BTW )

However, if there is anything on this list that s/he does not agree with, then s/he must indict this mindset as unjust, which drastically weakens the position it holds as a justification for an option other than the overly simplified "pro-choice".
Click to expand...
Addressed--talk to 1069 about the overly simplified pro-choice position--it hers.

The second position is dependent on the fact that Felicity does consider this a valid argument. If there is no body sovereignty, can the government/state violate it at will?
Click to expand...
I believe there is BdySov, but it is not a THE fundamental human right--and, for valid CIVIL reasons, BdySov can be abridged--most notably when a person's BdySov is at odds with the fundemental human right to life. I believe there is no just reason to abridge a fetus' human rights.

Since these consequences have not been seen in the status quo (or attempted), then there must be unrestricted body sovereignty.
Click to expand...
As I asked 1069--why is it okay to set aside all a fetus' human rights in favor of a mother's lesser human right?
 
Though I understand the OP's intention and the point they were trying to make, the explanation is actually very simple. As evidenced in Tennessee v Gardner, the only time the right to bodily sovereignty can be negated is when the State can show a vested interest in public safety or settling a civil dispute. It is an event that, in some cases like submission to a breath test, is a given. In others, as in the aforementioned case, there is a great burden of proof that must be met to prove reasonable suspicion before the right can be temporarily suspended. Even then it is only for a particular reason and a specific instance of that suspension.

An interesting read on the subject.
 
jallman said:
Tennessee v Gardner,
Click to expand...
Hmmmm...incredibly interesting! I was wondering when you were gonna throw your hat back into the “real” debate. I always love to hear from a rational opponent, and I tend to think that adjective fits your arguments—although we have butted heads in quite ugly ways before... )

The question that comes to mind is, what deadly threat or serious bodily injury is a fetus presenting to his mother? And what possible felony is a fetus perpetrating upon his mother? (We'll ignore for the moment the aspect of this case that deals with "fleeing" perps.)


the only time the right to bodily sovereignty can be negated is when the State can show a vested interest in public safety or settling a civil dispute.
Click to expand...
Well...I'm here to say once and for all--I am raising a civil dispute concerning the right of life of the developing human in the womb. I believe that human in the womb has rights that need to be addressed and that killing him denies him his human rights.

Secondly...I believe there is a vested interest in public safety in that, if the right to life is not protected, especially among the most vulnerable, all human lives are at risk of subjugation by totalitarian policies based on subjective criteria.
 

I know, I know. I won't make excuses because there are none. This is an intensely volatile issue and it tends to bring out the unruly passions in people. I have been guilty of that on more than one occasion.


Now I know you to be capable of applying a philosophy to more than one circumstance so for the time being I am going to let the particulars of the Tennessee v Gardner case go for a time too. As to what bodily injury a fetus presents a mother is that the fetus, in its most literal portrayal, is a parasite when the condition of pregnancy is unwanted. Further, the use of the mother's bodily resources when she isn't willingly offering them is tantamount to theft. However, the fetus has no personhood, therefore it cannot be considered culpable by criminal law just as it cannot be afforded protection under the law. I admit there is a hole in the logic there, but it cannot be helped until such a time as the personhood of the fetus is established.


Unfortunately, until the threshold of personhood is crossed (and I do believe that is the crux of any abortion debate), the fetus is really afforded no rights, civil or otherwise.

Secondly...I believe there is a vested interest in public safety in that, if the right to life is not protected, especially among the most vulnerable, all human lives are at risk of subjugation by totalitarian policies based on subjective criteria.
Click to expand...

Well, referring back to some of our more ugly encounters, I have to say we have visited this topic ad nauseam. The criteria for personhood are not subjective. In fact, they are quite objective when you look at the morphology of the fetus at different stages. The allowance of abortion prior to the full development of the CNS does not hold any bearing on the fate of all human life, especially considering the fact that once personhood is attained, it is, by our own medical ethics, irrevocable.
 
If "sovereignty" can ever be imposed upon or negated within a body of law, then it is not "sovereignty" but Liberty or Right.

As every citizen of the U.S. falls under U.S. jurisdiction, no U.S. citizen has "sovereignty". Not one single person.

Bodily Sovereignty does not exist.
 
Sorry...had a busy weekend...almost missed this.

jallman said:
As to what bodily injury a fetus presents a mother is that the fetus, in its most literal portrayal, is a parasite when the condition of pregnancy is unwanted.
Click to expand...
I understand the comparison, but the connotation of parasite, I believe, ignores the basic dignity humans enjoy as being members of the species. To eradicate the life of a tapeworm, for example, is to kill something that is not naturally intended to be in the belly of a particular animal. The offspring of a mammalian creature IS intended naturally to be within the body of its progenitor for a period of time as it develops. To contradict the tapeworm's existence by inducing its expulsion is in line with continuing the natural functioning of the human body. To induce expulsion of a zef prematurely is not in line with the natural functioning of the human body. It contradicts the natural process of the developing human, and the healthy and appropriate natural processes of the woman.


Further, the use of the mother's bodily resources when she isn't willingly offering them is tantamount to theft.
Click to expand...
This is the "contract" I referred to. When a woman engages in a particular behavior, she contracts with society responsibility for appropriate fulfillment of consequences--further, this responsibility to accept the consequences of chosen behavior cannot infringe on other's rights within that society.

However, the fetus has no personhood, therefore it cannot be considered culpable by criminal law just as it cannot be afforded protection under the law.
Click to expand...
The contract entered into by the mother is with society. The fetus exists. It is a very immature human. Even if it has no consciousness or rational ability. As with the insane, the retarded, the physically injured, all minors, the society has the moral obligation to intervene on behalf of the human unable to do so for him or herself. The mother, by engaging in behavior that reasonably carries with it a risk of pregnancy, entered into a social contract that limits her specific right to BdySov should the consequence of pregnancy occur. Society has an OBLIGATION to intervene on behalf of the weaker entity in the contract and protect the interests of that entity. It is in the interest of social justice and social order to do so. Abortion is the only issue I can think of, that allows the stronger entity in a contract to negate all duties to the weaker entity and even deprive the weaker of ALL human rights--further, this can be done with NO OVERSIGHT, and NO CONSEQUENCE.


Unborn Victims of Violence. Those are lawful rights indicating personhood.
 

It's natural for the tapeworm. A tapeworm is a "life."



In our society it is considered appropriate fulfillment of consequences for the woman with unwanted pregnancy to choose whether to give birth or abort.



Society has a higher moral obligation to a woman, a BORN, recognized member of society. Respect for women requires that society respects the natural privacy for the inner workings of their bodies. Society really has NO obligation to the unborn, which are not recognized as members of society, are not members of society, and never have been.




NO CONSEQUENCE? That is what really steams you, isn't it? A woman can abort and supposedly not be punished for choosing to have sex.
 

Technically speaking, so does cutting one's hair and fingernails, removing an offending appendix, preventing natural aging, or circumcision. Arresting a bodily function before there is a moral consequence is not outside the realm of reason.


Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. Granted, pregnancy is a natural progression if allowed to happen and is desired. However, if pregnancy does occur unwanted, before the fetus has any chance of showing presonhood, then abortion is well within the rights of a woman.

Think of it this way...when I eat marinara sauce, the likely progression is heartburn. Consent to eating Italian is not consent to suffering through the heartburn afterward.


But the fetus is not an entity. It is an extension of the mother's body and resources. There is no contract entered by the woman with society because the terms you set cannot be fulfilled. The fetus has no personhood and therefore no rights. And here again, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy any more than consent to marriage is consent to pregnancy. Within the woman's body, her's is the only oversight necessary. Her desire is the only one of consequence until the threshold of personhood is crossed by the fetus.
Unborn Victims of Violence. Those are lawful rights indicating personhood.[/QUOTE]
 
OKgrannie said:
It's natural for the tapeworm. A tapeworm is a "life."
Click to expand...
If you want to equate yourself with a tapeworm, I suppose you can:doh --I think you're worth more--human beings are not parasites. I acknowledged jallman's comparison because the actions of the fetus can be considered parasitic (adjective)--but that does not make the fetus a "parasite."

In our society it is considered appropriate fulfillment of consequences for the woman with unwanted pregnancy to choose whether to give birth or abort.
Click to expand...
It is only considered so because the supreme court took it upon themselves to define it thus. It is not "appropriate" it is "legal." What other contract can you completely nullify simply by deciding you want to? I'll tell you--NONE.



Society has a higher moral obligation to a woman, a BORN, recognized member of society.
Click to expand...
The woman has, and should have the right to protect her physical life should the fetus pose a threat to it. The presence of a fetus in the womb in no way threatens a woman's life in ordinary circumstance--in fact, it indicates female HEALTH! What moral obligation does society owe women in our society that justifies the right to kill the weakest members of our society?

Respect for women requires that society respects the natural privacy for the inner workings of their bodies.
Click to expand...
She consents to the terms of the contract in the society in which she lives by her actions. Right now, that contract allows her to negate her obligation to the weakest members of our society at her whim. That is unjust and against human rights. It is important that when there is unjust laws that we fight to rectify them--that is our obligation as good citizens in a society.

ExceptSociety really has NO obligation to the unborn, which are not recognized as members of society, are not members of society, and never have been.
Click to expand...
Did you miss the unborn victims of violence reference above? I noticed you ignored it in your response and that is probably why you said such a foolish thing above. How do you figure society has no obligation to the unborn? Why do you think there are laws concerning labeling alcoholic beverages etc...?




NO CONSEQUENCE? That is what really steams you, isn't it? A woman can abort and supposedly not be punished for choosing to have sex.
Click to expand...
Hey baby...I can go have sex with my hub right now and get preggers and it's not a "punishment." Pregnancy may be a consequence, but I wouldn't call it punishment.

What you fail to recognize is your own hatred of women and children. You equate the unborn to "parasites"--you call pregnancy a "punishment"--in another thread you called women who bear children mere "cattle..." What really "steams you," obviously, is that your misogyny and anti-child rhetoric is exposed. Keep talkin’ grannie....it only confirms the points I’m making.
 
[/QUOTE]

jallman--you didn't address the Unborn Victim of Violence either...The fact that you two are avoiding that issue PROVES that you recognize it totally blows all your other hooey out the window.:roll:
 
Felicity said:
jallman--you didn't address the Unborn Victim of Violence either...The fact that you two are avoiding that issue PROVES that you recognize it totally blows all your other hooey out the window.:roll:
Click to expand...

We have addressed that issue before. I hate to think that an oversight on my part is reason enough for you to call the rest of my points "hooey". Nothing has been proven here except that I wasn't eager to :beatdeadhorse

As has been stated before, the Unborn Victim of Violence laws are not so much a protection for the "unborn" as they are a penalty for taking from the mother. A mother can confer personhood to her unborn child simply by recognizing the fetus and expressing (through word, action, or inaction) a desire for the fetus to be born. I hope this satisfies whatever criteria for an answer you have laid out for us and our "hooey". :roll:
 
Felicity said:
...It is only considered so because the supreme court took it upon themselves to define it thus. It is not "appropriate" it is "legal." What other contract can you completely nullify simply by deciding you want to? I'll tell you--NONE. .
Click to expand...

It is only YOUR opinion that it is not "appropriate", in fact, a majority of citizens believe it IS appropriate. It is only your opinion that such a "contract" exists, a majority of citizens do not believe so.





A fetus in the womb always threatens a woman's health and life. Pregnancy is a dangerous condition.

THE EFFECTS OF PREGNANCY - complications of pregnancy






It is only your opinion that there IS such a contract. No woman has an obligation to provide gestation for an "it". I agree that we should rectify unjust laws...and the laws providing for forced gestation were unjust. I also believe we should not enact laws that are virtually unenforceable, as anti-abortion laws are. I believe that ignoring existing law promotes disrespect for ALL law.



The unborn victims of violence acts are unimportant in the overall view of abortion, they are primarily intended to protect women when they are at their most vulnerable; they are not intended to interfere with a woman's choices, and that is generally spelled out within the acts.



Felicity said:
... Hey baby...I can go have sex with my hub right now and get preggers and it's not a "punishment." Pregnancy may be a consequence, but I wouldn't call it punishment..
Click to expand...

For you, it wouldn't be a punishment, since it is YOUR choice. Forcing a woman to maintain a pregnancy that she doesn't want would be the worst sort of punishment. And what you would call it is immaterial, it is how she perceives it that counts.


Respecting women means allowing them to make their own choices, hating women means denying them choices. The unborn are "parasitical", whether pregnancy is a punishment or a glorious gift depends on the perception of the pregnant woman, it is not for YOU or I to judge. You are misquoting again, what do you hope to accomplish by that? I said that forcing women to bear children reduces them to the level of "cattle", it devalues women when you deny them choices regarding their own bodies.
 
OKgrannie said:



A fetus in the womb always threatens a woman's health and life. Pregnancy is a dangerous condition.
Click to expand...
Absolute hysterical hogwash.
The large majority of women are able to withstand pregnancy with zero danger or risk to their health.

It is only your opinion that there IS such a contract. No woman has an obligation to provide gestation for an "it".
Click to expand...
What if you know if it's a boy or girl....do you still call it an it?

I agree that we should rectify unjust laws...and the laws providing for forced gestation were unjust.
Click to expand...
The minute the government goes out and impregnates women forcing them to gestate I'll be completely on your side.


For you, it wouldn't be a punishment, since it is YOUR choice. Forcing a woman to maintain a pregnancy that she doesn't want would be the worst sort of punishment.
Click to expand...

I can think of much worse punishment! Ever read The Girl Next Door by Ketchum. Yeah "pregnancy" isn't nearly the "worst" sort of punishment a girl could face.

Respecting women means allowing them to make their own choices, hating women means denying them choices.
Click to expand...

Surely that's not always true. It might not be so respectful to stand by while a young girl puts a gun in her mouth. Also might not be so respectful to allow your daughter to sell sex for drugs 'cause you don't wish to deny her choices.

The unborn are "parasitical", whether pregnancy is a punishment or a glorious gift depends on the perception of the pregnant woman, it is not for YOU or I to judge.
Click to expand...

I really hate this parasite talk. So disgusting. Shame on you. I can call my children any number of names that I could justify by showing some truth in those names but I'd still be an ******* for using them.

You are misquoting again, what do you hope to accomplish by that? I said that forcing women to bear children reduces them to the level of "cattle", it devalues women when you deny them choices regarding their own bodies.
Click to expand...

I hardly think restricting abortion would pave the way for farms where women stand around chewing grass and leaving pies all about. I did breastfeed though so I guess I'm cowlike just as the unborn are parasite like. :roll:
 
talloulou said:
Absolute hysterical hogwash.
The large majority of women are able to withstand pregnancy with zero danger or risk to their health. :
Click to expand...


THE EFFECTS OF PREGNANCY - complications of pregnancy

"All pregnant women, by virtue of their pregnant status,
face some level of maternal risk. Data suggest that around
40% of all pregnant women have some complication.
About 15% ... [have complications] that are potentially life-threatening."

In addition:

Normal, frequent or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy:

exhaustion (weariness common from first weeks)
altered appetite and senses of taste and smell
nausea and vomiting (50% of women, first trimester)
heartburn and indigestion
constipation
weight gain
dizziness and light-headedness
bloating, swelling, fluid retention
hemmorhoids
abdominal cramps
yeast infections
congested, bloody nose
acne and mild skin disorders
skin discoloration (chloasma, face and abdomen)
mild to severe backache and strain
increased headaches
difficulty sleeping, and discomfort while sleeping
increased urination and incontinence
bleeding gums
pica
breast pain and discharge
swelling of joints, leg cramps, joint pain
difficulty sitting, standing in later pregnancy
inability to take regular medications
shortness of breath
higher blood pressure
hair loss
tendency to anemia
curtailment of ability to participate in some sports and activities
infection including from serious and potentially fatal disease
(pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with non-pregnant women, and
are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases)
extreme pain on delivery
hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression
continued post-partum exhaustion and recovery period (exacerbated if a c-section -- major surgery -- is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to fully recover)

Normal, expectable, or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy:

stretch marks (worse in younger women)
loose skin
permanent weight gain or redistribution
abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness
pelvic floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life)
changes to breasts
varicose veins
scarring from episiotomy or c-section
other permanent aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed by women, because the culture values youth and beauty)
increased proclivity for hemmorhoids
loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)



talloulou said:
I really hate this parasite talk. So disgusting. Shame on you. I can call my children any number of names that I could justify by showing some truth in those names but I'd still be an ******* for using them.:
Click to expand...

There's quite a lot about pregnancy/childbirth that's NOT all nicey-nice and pretty. Shame on you for trying to pretend that it is.



talloulou said:
I hardly think restricting abortion would pave the way for farms where women stand around chewing grass and leaving pies all about. I did breastfeed though so I guess I'm cowlike just as the unborn are parasite like. :roll:
Click to expand...

Restricting abortion devalues women by making reproducing the most important aspect of their lives....like cattle. When women can control their reproduction, bearing children can be an important part of their lives, how important is their choice. When women cannot control their reproduction, their own lives become secondary to childbearing/childrearing...like cattle. If society truly expects to restrict abortion, it will be necessary to isolate women, or imprison them, to prevent them from aborting, sort of like....fenced-in farms.
 
I read your post and stand by my original assessment of your hogwash.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…