Fallacy of Unrestricted Body Sovereignty

[jallman]

What follows right after that portion you quote is this:


Istead of tying personhood of the fetus to the mother, it expressly allows the mother to kill a person in her womb or grant permission for another to kill the person in her womb. It is a free pass on murder--It gives one person complete control over the life and death of another "defined" person.



However, Roe vs. Wade expressly pointed out that if "personhood" is merely "suggested" to be appropriate for the unborn--the 14th ammendment applies to the fetus (successfully argued in front of the SC). This demonstrates Roe vs. Wade "collapses" under it's own provisions. The constitutionality of that section of Laci's Law that allows women to legally kill people within their bodies, is a seperate issue.

So you are going to take a nomenclature for a document of criminal law and apply it to a completely different argument? Now we see why pro-choicers opposed the legislation: foreshadowing for another obfuscation by the pro life camp. The document itself clearly states that abortion is excluded. This document in no way, shape, or form offered a revision of the personhood status of a fetus. Nor was it in any way, shape, or form a setup for undermining the Roe v Wade decision. It is simply a further deterrent against perpetrating violence against women.

 

[OKgrannie]

Obviously you think a woman doesn't have a choice when she faces her own sexual desires. You must believe that her sexual impulses have such power over her behaviors that she cannot CHOOSE to control them and MUST succumb to her urges, otherwise you would acknowledge that the woman HAS a choice concerning childbearing and pregnancy and can exercise that choice concerning what's best for her when she chooses whether or not to engage in that behavior that brings about pregnancy and childbirth. I TRUST women are not slaves to their emotions and sexual longings--she is RATIONAL and REASONABLE and the master of her own destiny by being COMPETENT enough to handle her own behavior.

"she is RATIONAL and REASONABLE and the master of her own destiny by being COMPETENT enough to handle her own behavior" EXACTLY! And only the IRRATIONAL and UNREASONABLE would attempt to interfere in another woman's choices.

You sound jealous! It wasn't "easy"--it was NATURAL.

I am jealous, I found it to be hard even with medical assistance, and my body will never be the same.

BULL--the RISKS are no different--the CONSEQUENCES may be, however.

Well, the CONSEQUENCE is the RISK of death. AND also the risk of life-altering damage to her health.

It simply isn't--unless you've scheduled a C-section--then it's a medical procedure that extracts the child before natural childbirth.

Anesthesia and episiotomy are medical procedures. So is the use of forceps and other manipulations to assist in birth.

Indeed it is of consequence to me, because I live in this society that owes its weakest members support and defense to ensure the well-being of all its members.

Here's your answer--and specifically why legal abortion undermines this "social contract" to which I refer:
YOUR safety and mine is protected in that a society that will demonstrate compassion and defend the individual rights and dignity of the human person NO MATTER his status, race, creed, etc...or his AGE or level of development, is a society that will protect YOUR rights and MY rights justly. It is a matter of social JUSTICE which creates the stability that we enjoy in this society. I do not wish to see this stability implode at the hands of those who arbitrarily DEvalue human life in order to show deference to the personal wishes of a few --or even if it were the majority--personal wishes and/or preference cannot supercede basic human rights. The propaganda that speaks of the RIGHTS that abortion provides women, in fact, undermines this social justice and undermines the stability of our whole society.

A fetus is not (a) a member of society, or (b) a human person, and you cannot legislate that it is either without undermining JUSTICE for a woman.

And your preference matters....how??? Just because you like it, doesn't make RvW legitimate, or socially "just."

And conversely, just because you DON'T like it, doesn't make it illegitimate or socially "unjust."

 

[Felicity]

So you are going to take a nomenclature for a document of criminal law and apply it to a completely different argument? Now we see why pro-choicers opposed the legislation: foreshadowing for another obfuscation by the pro life camp. The document itself clearly states that abortion is excluded. This document in no way, shape, or form offered a revision of the personhood status of a fetus. Nor was it in any way, shape, or form a setup for undermining the Roe v Wade decision. It is simply a further deterrent against perpetrating violence against women.

I'm not sure I totally understand your point in the first couple of sentences...but if I get your drift right, my response is that RvW is FLAWED. The question of the legality of abortion to whatever degree should have been left to the states and NEVER in the hands of the Supreme Court. If the FLAWED ruling ceased to be...it would not END abortion--THAT would be the states' issue as it should have always been. I would still be arguing pro-life as I do, but it would be on a totally different level.

Roe is just soooooo flawed on sooooo many levels. It really is only still relevant because how it has affected society in such a huge way people are AFRAID of what would happen if it was let go. Reallly--people who are pro-choice would probably prefer a better argued ruling than that rag. Wouldn't you?

 

[Felicity]

"she is RATIONAL and REASONABLE and the master of her own destiny by being COMPETENT enough to handle her own behavior" EXACTLY! And only the IRRATIONAL and UNREASONABLE would attempt to interfere in another woman's choices.




I am jealous, I found it to be hard even with medical assistance, and my body will never be the same.



Well, the CONSEQUENCE is the RISK of death. AND also the risk of life-altering damage to her health.




Anesthesia and episiotomy are medical procedures. So is the use of forceps and other manipulations to assist in birth.




A fetus is not (a) a member of society, or (b) a human person, and you cannot legislate that it is either without undermining JUSTICE for a woman.





And conversely, just because you DON'T like it, doesn't make it illegitimate or socially "unjust."

Grannie...really this stuff is off topic of this thread--except for your assertions concerning the fetus being a "human person"--the Unborn Victims law deals with that as jallman and i have been discussing, but you just keep making your unsupported statements... join in that conversation if you'd like, but the medical procedure called "birth" (NOT) is really something for a different thread and the subjugation of women at the hands of the abortion mentality is also for another thread...'kay?

 

[jallman]

I'm not sure I totally understand your point in the first couple of sentences...but if I get your drift right, my response is that RvW is FLAWED. The question of the legality of abortion to whatever degree should have been left to the states and NEVER in the hands of the Supreme Court. If the FLAWED ruling ceased to be...it would not END abortion--THAT would be the states' issue as it should have always been. I would still be arguing pro-life as I do, but it would be on a totally different level.

I mean no disrespect when I say this, but the idea that the abortion issue is a state's right issue is a total crock. It is the federal interest to ensure that no citizen is having their freedom violated. To be held in a state of pregnancy against her will violates a woman's freedom. The fact that the SCOTUS didn't side with the pro-life camp is the only reason they scream state's rights. They didn't prove their case in one arena so they scream foul and try to play the issue out in 50 others. It's a crock.

Roe is just soooooo flawed on sooooo many levels. It really is only still relevant because how it has affected society in such a huge way people are AFRAID of what would happen if it was let go. Reallly--people who are pro-choice would probably prefer a better argued ruling than that rag. Wouldn't you?

I can only say that for the information available at the time, Justice Blackmun was very level headed in writing his ruling. However, I do think it needs some updates based on the current information...like a clause barring abortion at 18 or 19 weeks.

 

[Felicity]

I mean no disrespect when I say this, but the idea that the abortion issue is a state's right issue is a total crock. It is the federal interest to ensure that no citizen is having their freedom violated. To be held in a state of pregnancy against her will violates a woman's freedom. The fact that the SCOTUS didn't side with the pro-life camp is the only reason they scream state's rights. They didn't prove their case in one arena so they scream foul and try to play the issue out in 50 others. It's a crock.

It's been dealt with at the federal level with the 14th amendment. I am one who is of the belief that laws that allow abortion violate the 14th amendment so at the state level I would argue that very point. But that is where the argument BELONGS--at the state level and in accord with the constitution. RvW reached too far. Without regard to the fact that there isn't anything in the constitution that implies that states can't legislate medical issues--it happens all the time...Medical services and agencies are legislated like MAD! RvW simply stated it is a privacy right and closed the door on the discussion. That is wrong and outside the role of the Supreme Court. The debate belongs in the states and in the hands of voters...and so it should be also with the "medical" issue of abortion as long as it considers the 14th amendment and its application to an unborn person.

I can only say that for the information available at the time, Justice Blackmun was very level headed in writing his ruling. However, I do think it needs some updates based on the current information...like a clause barring abortion at 18 or 19 weeks.

Besides not being "current" medically, it has errors in logic and legality and even facts. It's a mess. I will probably start a thread on it soon, I think...

 

[Synch]

Just a few thoughts to counter the supposed “preeminent right to bodily sovereignty” purported by some pro-choicers.

Keep trying.

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 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.
I can’t decide to not clothe my own body.
I can’t ingest any drug I choose.
I can’t starve myself without eventual intervention compelling me to eat.

You should be able to all those things, laws don't dictate morality.

If I violate some aspect of the “social contract”, my body can be jailed against my will.

Compensation you must give back for the harm you have done violating the social contract, direct and indirect, what is unjust with that?

I can be committed to a psychiatric facility against my will.

Has it been proven you are a large risk to the Lockean rights of others?

Vaccinations are compelled upon the population.

Again, overwhelming risk towards society, if you do not take the vaccine the rights of others are violated, when weighing rights vs rights violating the rights of someone by giving them a vaccine is far less unjust than letting a person propagate a virus among the population that may impact those who can't receive the vaccine.

I can’t smoke on the streets of New York.

Violating the rights of the others to not have pernicious chemicals aggressively fill into their lungs.

If I am reasonably suspected of a crime--even if I am innocent--I can be compelled to give DNA

Part of the social contract requires the state to reduce risks of rights violating acts in society, if there is reasonable and independent reason for the suspicion, something not arbitrary, it is reasonable just.

Men can be compelled to submit to paternity testing.

They shouldn't be, in fact the situation against men in this country has eroded far beyond that, mothers can just name names, and if the father doesn't show up to court he may be stuck with child support fees forever.

Even if you are found innocent(not the father) after the court ordered you to pay the child support you don't get a penny back even if the feds are found they made a mistake.

There was a case in which after an oral sex session the woman took the semen deposited in her mouth to impregnate herself, and now the man faces a lifetime of child support.

 

[Felicity]

Keep trying.


You should be able to all those things, laws don't dictate morality.


Compensation you must give back for the harm you have done violating the social contract, direct and indirect, what is unjust with that?


Has it been proven you are a large risk to the Lockean rights of others?


Again, overwhelming risk towards society, if you do not take the vaccine the rights of others are violated, when weighing rights vs rights violating the rights of someone by giving them a vaccine is far less unjust than letting a person propagate a virus among the population that may impact those who can't receive the vaccine.


Violating the rights of the others to not have pernicious chemicals aggressively fill into their lungs.


Part of the social contract requires the state to reduce risks of rights violating acts in society, if there is reasonable and independent reason for the suspicion, something not arbitrary, it is reasonable just.


They shouldn't be, in fact the situation against men in this country has eroded far beyond that, mothers can just name names, and if the father doesn't show up to court he may be stuck with child support fees forever.

Even if you are found innocent(not the father) after the court ordered you to pay the child support you don't get a penny back even if the feds are found they made a mistake.

There was a case in which after an oral sex session the woman took the semen deposited in her mouth to impregnate herself, and now the man faces a lifetime of child support.

Do you understand the context in which I offered the list and how the discussion progressed beyond simple points to discuss the "social contract" and our duties to the unborn? Are you interested in discussing the core issue, or are you gonna be a one-post-wonder type?

 

[Jerry]

I mean no disrespect when I say this, but the idea that the abortion issue is a state's right issue is a total crock.

It's not a 'State's rights', its "compelling state interest" -v- "Fundamental freedoms"

It is the federal interest to ensure that no citizen is having their freedom violated.

That's the Pro-Life argument, in that the unborn's freedoms are currently being violated by being denied "personhood" status.

To be held in a state of pregnancy against her will violates a woman's freedom.

Yes it does, and for just reason.
Per Roe-v-Wade, as of viability the state can impose a "Due-Burden" upon her and she can be legally compelled to carry out the pregnancy against her will because the state has a compelling interest in protecting the potential life of that viable fetus.

The fact that the SCOTUS didn't side with the pro-life camp is the only reason they scream state's rights. They didn't prove their case in one arena so they scream foul and try to play the issue out in 50 others. It's a crock.

Roe-v-Wade section 11 counters your claim here.

I can only say that for the information available at the time, Justice Blackmun was very level headed in writing his ruling. However, I do think it needs some updates based on the current information...like a clause barring abortion at 18 or 19 weeks.

Doesn't look like we disagree to much on abortion after all :2wave: