"It's my body"[W:191, 709]

[Peter Grimm]

I'm not usually one to jump in to the abortion debate - frankly I'm undecided on the issue. However, one pro-choice argument we often hear is "it's my body" or "it's a woman's body, nobody has the right to tell her what to do with it."

Without taking a stand on the abortion debate - that argument is bullcrap. I call it like I see it - that one is intellectually dishonest.

A woman's leg belongs to her as well. If a woman went to the doctor and asked him to cut off her leg, there isn't a doctor in America that would do it. So clearly "it's my body I can do whatever I want" doesn't cut it in the medical profession.

Similarly, we don't allow doctors to take people's lives who are suicidal, even though it's their body.

So please find a more logical argument to support your pro-choice stances.

Thanks!

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

Re: "It's my body"

I'm not usually one to jump in to the abortion debate - frankly I'm undecided on the issue. However, one pro-choice argument we often hear is "it's my body" or "it's a woman's body, nobody has the right to tell her what to do with it."

Without taking a stand on the abortion debate - that argument is bullcrap. I call it like I see it - that one is intellectually dishonest.

A woman's leg belongs to her as well. If a woman went to the doctor and asked him to cut off her leg, there isn't a doctor in America that would do it. So clearly "it's my body I can do whatever I want" doesn't cut it in the medical profession.

Similarly, we don't allow doctors to take people's lives who are suicidal, even though it's their body.

So please find a more logical argument to support your pro-choice stances.

Thanks!

Well surprisingly I got back to the hotel from a long day from being at sea world (on vacation.) Decided to log in quick and see that you have posted a thread already. Let's see here.... hmmmm..... I got it now.

I decide to walk by a pond knowing beforehand a leach/tick can attach itself to my body. With me knowing the consequences of my actions I go on ahead and swim in the pond and go home to discover a leach/tick is attached to my body. I decide to kill it and proudly say ''It's my body my choice!.''

Using its placenta, an unborn human steals nutrients from the body of its mother dumps toxic bio wastes into the body of its mother, and (worse than anything a typical “parasite” might do!), infuses the body of its mother with addictive substances. For more information, search for exact phrases such as “feel good hormone” and “hormone may help mom and baby bond” and “addiction to oestrogen” and “post partum depression fact sheet”. Basically, post partum depression is the “withdrawal symptom” associated with the shutdown of the supply of addictive substances.

 

[Jerry]

Re: "It's my body"

I'm not usually one to jump in to the abortion debate - frankly I'm undecided on the issue. However, one pro-choice argument we often hear is "it's my body" or "it's a woman's body, nobody has the right to tell her what to do with it."

Without taking a stand on the abortion debate - that argument is bullcrap. I call it like I see it - that one is intellectually dishonest.

A woman's leg belongs to her as well. If a woman went to the doctor and asked him to cut off her leg, there isn't a doctor in America that would do it. So clearly "it's my body I can do whatever I want" doesn't cut it in the medical profession.

Similarly, we don't allow doctors to take people's lives who are suicidal, even though it's their body.

So please find a more logical argument to support your pro-choice stances.

Thanks!

My Body, My Choice, is an argument based on a false premis.
The premise is: "It's my body".

This can be interpreted one of 2 ways, depending on what is meant by "my" or "mine":

1. The unborn is literally another part of the woman's body, just like the woman's kidney, tooth or arm.
2. The unborn is the woman's property.

• To the first interpretation: The unborn is literally another part of the woman's body, just like the woman's kidney, tooth or arm:

All of the parts of a woman's body share the exact same DNA. The unborn has a distinct and unique DNA. All of the parts of a woman's body are connected by a central nerves and circulatory system. The unborn is not connected to the mother's circulatory or nervis system. The unborn has it's own systems, circulatory, nervis, reproductive, respiratory, etc.

• To the second interpretation: The unborn is the woman's property:

When one person owns another, this is called slavery, which is illegal and invalid.

Therefore, it's not her body, it's her child's body, and while she remains the obvious custodial parent, she is still bound by all ethical standards every parent is already bound to with regard to caring for children under their charge. These standards are governed by Public Policy and Law, which therefore makes the matter every voter's and tax-payer's business.

I am a voter, I pay taxes, therefore I have a Constitutional right to an authoritative voice. No single voter or tax-payer decides any legal issue arbitrarily, but collectively, and nothing diminishes my contribution.

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

Re: "It's my body"

When one person owns another, this is called slavery, which is illegal and invalid.

Here the pro lifers fails to notice that we have always treated ordinary animals as slaves/property. If you want to claim that a unborn human qualifies as a person, then what about, say, an adult pig, which has more intelligence than the human.

Right now at the moment I own two non persons (two cats) so since the unborn human doesn't even have any of the mental abilities that separate a entity from a ordinary animal should owning pets be illegal as well?

 

[Jerry]

Re: "It's my body"

Here the pro lifers fails to notice that we have always treated ordinary animals as slaves/property.

Abortion law only regards humans, and so I'll be staying within that limit. I ask that you do as well.

Right now at the moment I own two non persons (two cats) so since the unborn human doesn't even have any of the mental abilities that separate a entity from a ordinary animal should owning pets be illegal as well?

The 'brain activity' argument is irrelevant for 3 reasons:
1. You will note that the legal definition of "person" contains no reference of brain activity. The reason being that the 'brain activity' argument is a Secular Humanist perversion of "Cogito, ergo sum", is purely theological in nature and therefore has no place in Posative Law.

2. Main stream Pro-Choice makes no argument that as soon as brain activity is evident in the ZEF, that the ZEF is then a "person" under the law, and therefore Roe-v-Wade Section 9a makes all elective abortion "murder" under the law.

3. As demonstrated by Obama, and Planned Parenthood, and pro-choice philosophers Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva In the Journal of Medical Ethics , it can not only have brain activity, but be born and surviving completely outside-of and detached-from the mother and still not be seen as a "person".

Therefore, we can conclude that the 'brain activity' argument is disingenuous if not a violation of the 1st amendment. Pro-Choice is assuming the false premise that they would ban abortion were there religious requirement of brain activity present.

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

Re: "It's my body"

1. Abortion law only regards humans, and so I'll be staying within that limit. I ask that you do as well.



2. The 'brain activity' argument is irrelevant for 3 reasons:
1. You will note that the legal definition of "person" contains no reference of brain activity. The reason being that the 'brain activity' argument is a Secular Humanist perversion of "Cogito, ergo sum", is purely theological in nature and therefore has no place in Posative Law.

2. Main stream Pro-Choice makes no argument that as soon as brain activity is evident in the ZEF, that the ZEF is then a "person" under the law, and therefore Roe-v-Wade Section 9a makes all elective abortion "murder" under the law.

3. As demonstrated by Obama, and Planned Parenthood, and pro-choice philosophers Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva In the Journal of Medical Ethics , it can not only have brain activity, but be born and surviving completely outside-of and detached-from the mother and still not be seen as a "person".

Therefore, we can conclude that the 'brain activity' argument is disingenuous if not a violation of the 1st amendment. Pro-Choice is assuming the false premise that they would ban abortion were there religious requirement of brain activity present.

1. Yes since the unborn human has no mental abilities that separate a entity from a ordinary animal, it can be objectively treated like property. You want to compare slavery to it? It can also to be logically done with any other entity as well and all will see how ridiculous your claim is here.

2. Here the pro lifers misses the whole point. I completely agree the brain activity is irrelevant which has nothing to do with mental abilities at all since a unborn human pass 20 weeks has upper and lower brain activity like I do yet has none of the mental abilities that I have. Try again

After all if you want to call a unborn human a person, you will need to tell me what it has that a ordinary animal doesn't have or otherwise we can grant personhood status to a wide variety of ordinary animals which will be a big problem indeed.

 

[iguanaman]

Re: "It's my body"

Abortion law only regards humans, and so I'll be staying within that limit. I ask that you do as well.



The 'brain activity' argument is irrelevant for 3 reasons:
1. You will note that the legal definition of "person" contains no reference of brain activity. The reason being that the 'brain activity' argument is a Secular Humanist perversion of "Cogito, ergo sum", is purely theological in nature and therefore has no place in Posative Law.

2. Main stream Pro-Choice makes no argument that as soon as brain activity is evident in the ZEF, that the ZEF is then a "person" under the law, and therefore Roe-v-Wade Section 9a makes all elective abortion "murder" under the law.

3. As demonstrated by Obama, and Planned Parenthood, and pro-choice philosophers Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva In the Journal of Medical Ethics , it can not only have brain activity, but be born and surviving completely outside-of and detached-from the mother and still not be seen as a "person".

Therefore, we can conclude that the 'brain activity' argument is disingenuous if not a violation of the 1st amendment. Pro-Choice is assuming the false premise that they would ban abortion were there religious requirement of brain activity present.

Your arguments are invalid. If a fetus had brain activity it would be already born. A fetus is not self-sufficient and has no higher brain activity and is therefore not a human being. You can have your opinion but that is all it is. You might as well be saying that a fetus has a soul because that is what you really mean

 

[Jerry]

Re: "It's my body"

1. Yes since the unborn human has no mental abilities that separate a entity from a ordinary animal, it can be objectively treated like property. You want to compare slavery to it? It can also to be logically done with any other entity as well and all will see how ridiculous your claim is here.

2. Here the pro lifers misses the whole point. I completely agree the brain activity is irrelevant which has nothing to do with mental abilities at all since a unborn human pass 20 weeks has upper and lower brain activity like I do yet has none of the mental abilities that I have. Try again

After all if you want to call a unborn human a person, you will need to tell me what it has that a ordinary animal doesn't have or otherwise we can grant personhood status to a wide variety of ordinary animals which will be a big problem indeed.

Abortion law doesn't regard animals, so I have no obligation to answer any of your challenges. You're entire argument is irrelevant.

 

[Henrin]

Re: "It's my body"

Your arguments are invalid. A fetus is not self-sufficient and has no higher brain activity and is therefore not a human being. You can have your opinion but that is all it is

Oh great, that argument again. If it's not a human being then exactly what is it?

 

[Jerry]

Re: "It's my body"

Your arguments are invalid. A fetus is not self-sufficient and has no higher brain activity and is therefore not a human being. You can have your opinion but that is all it is

Where in the definition of "person" do you see a "self-sufficiency" requirement?

 

[Jerry]

Re: "It's my body"

Oh great, that argument again. If it's not a human being then exactly what is it?

A Velociraptor! RAR!!

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

Re: "It's my body"

Abortion law doesn't regard animals, so I have no obligation to answer any of your challenges. You're entire argument is irrelevant.

Looks like someone here doesn't really know what the whole abortion debate is about. :lol:

The only thing relevant to the overall abortion debate is personhood (basic rights like the right to life) and what criteria should be used to determine what entities should have rights and which one's shouldn't.

Since your side wants to grant the unborn human's personhoodthe whole argument I gave you pertained to that and for some odd reason you decided to dodge and are already wasting my time on the matter.

Translation: You can't provide anything of a noteworthy rebuttal.

After all if you want to call a unborn human a person than you need to explain what would make it a person. Not just make mere claims and expect to get away with it.

And do this that pro lifers commonly do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority Thinking that because ''the law says this'' that it somehow should magically be treated as if it was correct on the matter.

 

[Henrin]

Re: "It's my body"

I'm not usually one to jump in to the abortion debate - frankly I'm undecided on the issue. However, one pro-choice argument we often hear is "it's my body" or "it's a woman's body, nobody has the right to tell her what to do with it."

Without taking a stand on the abortion debate - that argument is bullcrap. I call it like I see it - that one is intellectually dishonest.

A woman's leg belongs to her as well. If a woman went to the doctor and asked him to cut off her leg, there isn't a doctor in America that would do it. So clearly "it's my body I can do whatever I want" doesn't cut it in the medical profession.

Similarly, we don't allow doctors to take people's lives who are suicidal, even though it's their body.

So please find a more logical argument to support your pro-choice stances.

Thanks!

A doctor cutting off her leg is someone else acting towards her body. If she were to ask a doctor to cut off her leg the other party would have the right to deny her request and not provide her the service she requested. If however she cut off her own leg and the government came to arrest her the government would be in violation of her rights as she committed no crime and simply committed an act that harmed her own person and property.

There is really no difference between the former case and the case of suicide as in both cases the individual as the right to harm their own person and property and if someone else were to commit such acts on their person they must be sure to have ample proof permission was granted or otherwise they would be in violation of their rights. Of course in neither case am I referring to law as we know it, but just basic common sense.

To relate this all back to the subject matter it should be noted that the unborn is not part of the womans body, but is indeed has its own developing body that has a legitimate claim to not be harmed.

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

Re: "It's my body"

Oh great, that argument again. If it's not a human being then exactly what is it?

It's a dolphin during pregnancy and turns into a human once born. eace

Get the scientific facts straight Henrin.

 

[iguanaman]

Re: "It's my body"

Where in the definition of "person" do you see a "self-sufficiency" requirement?

Human beings are self-sufficient organisms. Not to mention when they cease to have higher brain activity we disconnect them with ease because they are no longer human.

 

[Northern Light]

Re: "It's my body"

It's "my body" because whatever is gestating inside of me meets the medical definition of a parasite, whether or not I decide to let it continue. It's embedded in my uterus, its umbilical cord is attached to my body, and its presence causes radical changes in my physiology to accommodate its growth.

Being pregnant already sucks. Being pregnant when you don't want to be sucks even more. Being forced to stay pregnant must be a nightmare.

A first trimester fetus is nothing to behold and I feel that pro-life/anti-choice right wingers are far, far too ideological about it. And I say that as someone who could never personally go through with an abortion. I'm sorry but I just don't consider that phase of human life to be worthy of personhood. I can understand late pregnancy, but anything up to mid-second trimester is not really debatable.

Humanity as a whole is better off with the availability of abortion. Being raised by parents who never wanted you, who may even resent your existence, and who can't accommodate your existence, is also a nightmare.

Regardless of what right wingers think, pregnant women will always have self-determination, whether or not abortion is legal.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Re: "It's my body"

I'm not usually one to jump in to the abortion debate - frankly I'm undecided on the issue. However, one pro-choice argument we often hear is "it's my body" or "it's a woman's body, nobody has the right to tell her what to do with it."

Without taking a stand on the abortion debate - that argument is bullcrap. I call it like I see it - that one is intellectually dishonest.

A woman's leg belongs to her as well. If a woman went to the doctor and asked him to cut off her leg, there isn't a doctor in America that would do it. So clearly "it's my body I can do whatever I want" doesn't cut it in the medical profession.

Similarly, we don't allow doctors to take people's lives who are suicidal, even though it's their body.

So please find a more logical argument to support your pro-choice stances.

Thanks!

Actually there are doctors who would do it. There is a very rare mental disorder that causes extreme distress by the presence of a limb which, at this point in medical history, is only cured by removal of said limb. Weird, but true. Body integrity disorder or something.

There are also doctors who will help you die. They have to do it in secret, but it happens all the time.

But anyway, that's beside the point.

No one can STOP you from cutting off your leg. The fact that no one can stop you -- that the leg is part of you and you will ultimately decide what is done to it no matter what anyone says -- is what makes it yours, in the sense of natural rights.

Exactly the same is true of a woman. We are not debating whether women have the right to abort, because it's utterly undebatable. She has the absolute natural right to abort. That is simply a fact, and women have been utilizing that fact for as long as humanity has existed using hundreds of different means.

We are merely debating whether we, as a society, are ready to recognize the natural rights of women. That's it.

This argument works on anything. Who says anyone is entitled to any kind of medical care at all, even if they pay for it?

No one. So why do we provide it?

Because offering people the means to express their rights in an orderly and controlled fashion is simply the civilized and respectful thing to do -- recognition of rights is vital to a peaceful society. A society which does not recognize the natural rights of others does not stop them from exercising it, but it does breed a society full of suffering, malice, and strife.

We are not debating whether women can abort. Anyone who believes they have that kind of power over women is hysterically deluded.

We are just debating whether we are a civilized society or not.

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

Re: "It's my body"

Where in the definition of "person" do you see a "self-sufficiency" requirement?

The whole point of the abortion debate, is arguing about what that definition should be. Hence the debate :lol:

Saying ''Well the law says this'' misses the point completely.

 

[polgara]

Re: "It's my body"

Human beings are self-sufficient organisms. Not to mention when they cease to have higher brain activity we disconnect them with ease because they are no longer human.

We're cremating or burying aliens now? I think I have finally heard it all!

And BTW, if all humans are self-sufficient organisms, as you claim, why are we spending billions on social programs so they can survive?

I suspect you were being a bit sarcastic in your post, right?

Greetings, iguanaman. :2wave:

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

Re: "It's my body"

If all humans are self-sufficient organisms, as you claim, why are we spending billions on social programs so they can survive?

I believe he meant biologically self sufficient organisms which is around the ''viability'' mark during pregnancy with the unborn human.

 

[polgara]

Re: "It's my body"

It's "my body" because whatever is gestating inside of me meets the medical definition of a parasite, whether or not I decide to let it continue. It's embedded in my uterus, its umbilical cord is attached to my body, and its presence causes radical changes in my physiology to accommodate its growth.

Being pregnant already sucks. Being pregnant when you don't want to be sucks even more. Being forced to stay pregnant must be a nightmare.

A first trimester fetus is nothing to behold and I feel that pro-life/anti-choice right wingers are far, far too ideological about it. And I say that as someone who could never personally go through with an abortion. I'm sorry but I just don't consider that phase of human life to be worthy of personhood. I can understand late pregnancy, but anything up to mid-second trimester is not really debatable.

Humanity as a whole is better off with the availability of abortion. Being raised by parents who never wanted you, who may even resent your existence, and who can't accommodate your existence, is also a nightmare.

Regardless of what right wingers think, pregnant women will always have self-determination, whether or not abortion is legal.

Since there are currently seven billion former "parasites" running around on this planet today, and considering that the dictionary describes a parasite as something that takes and never gives, but acts in the only way it knows how, that might explain why this world is in so much trouble today, in almost every respect! We just don't know any better! :shock:

Greetings, Northern Light. :2wave:

 

[Jerry]

Re: "It's my body"

Looks like someone here doesn't really know what the whole abortion debate is about. :lol:

The only thing relevant to the overall abortion debate is personhood (basic rights like the right to life) and what criteria should be used to determine what entities should have rights and which one's shouldn't.

Since your side wants to grant the unborn human's personhoodthe whole argument I gave you pertained to that and for some odd reason you decided to dodge and are already wasting my time on the matter.

Translation: You can't provide anything of a noteworthy rebuttal.

After all if you want to call a unborn human a person than you need to explain what would make it a person. Not just make mere claims and expect to get away with it.

And do this that pro lifers commonly do. Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Thinking that because ''the law says this'' that it somehow should magically be treated as if it was correct on the matter.

I never said I wanted to call the unborn a "person". I said the pro-choice 'brain-capacity/mental-abilities' argument was bunk because they don't follow their own standard. That doesn't mean I want to call the unborn a 'person'.

FYI: I'm not pro-life, IMO early elective abortion should forever remain legal. That doesn't mean I have to tolerate bull**** arguments.

The law doesn't care about brain activity either way when it comes to 'personhood', be it human or animal or otherwise. Proof: A Macaw has the intelligence of a 4-8 y/o human child. Run over both the Macaw and the 4-8 y/o child and you not face 2 counts of murder. You will face one count of murder and one count of Animal Cruelty. Same mental faculties, the Macaw can even speak and hold a rudimentary conversation, but it's still not a "person".

Animals are irrelevant to the topic of abortion.

The relevant elements are the woman's right to elective medical procedures, the state's interest in potential life, and that's it. Even regarding the potential life, the state only begins to care when the potential is viable. The state simply doesn't care about mental capacity because Macaws don't pay taxes.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: "It's my body"

1.)I'm not usually one to jump in to the abortion debate - frankly I'm undecided on the issue. However, one pro-choice argument we often hear is "it's my body" or "it's a woman's body, nobody has the right to tell her what to do with it."

Without taking a stand on the abortion debate - that argument is bullcrap. I call it like I see it - that one is intellectually dishonest.

2.) A woman's leg belongs to her as well. If a woman went to the doctor and asked him to cut off her leg, there isn't a doctor in America that would do it. So clearly "it's my body I can do whatever I want" doesn't cut it in the medical profession.

3.) Similarly, we don't allow doctors to take people's lives who are suicidal, even though it's their body.

4.)So please find a more logical argument to support your pro-choice stances.

Thanks!

1.) no its 100% legit has it doesnt just end there its acknowledging that with her body there is her rights legal, equal and human, if you believe in the later

so the only way to make it intellectually dishonest would be to ignore those rights, so your assessment is simply wrong

2.) ahh see now you are getting it, see #1 this is why your straw man failed and your example is the perfect example for intellectually dishonest.
how is asking to remove a leg like abortion or does it relate to the its my body and that has rights with it point? it doesnt

remind me? would a doctor take her leg off if keeping it would possible kill her? yep

3.) again see 1 and 2 you are answering your own question and proving your premises is a failed one

4.) you already did it, you just proved the body stance is about rights and not the intellectually dishonest strawman you posted..

that was really easy, thank you

 

[Jerry]

Re: "It's my body"

Human beings are self-sufficient organisms.

A newborn human child is not self-sufficient. If your standard is true then newborns aren't people, which means it should be legal to kill them, according to your argument.

 

[Jerry]

Re: "It's my body"

I believe he meant biologically self sufficient organisms which is around the ''viability'' mark during pregnancy with the unborn human.

A newborn human child is "viable" but not "self-sufficient".

If you hold newborn human child should be a "person", that means the "self-sufficient" requirement is out.
If you hold newborn human child should not be a "person", that means the "viable" requirement is out.

So which attribute do you keep and which do you toss out?