Pregnancy: When Should Government Restrict the Rights of Women?

[Dans La Lune]

During the pregnancy process, when should government step in and restrict the rights and freedoms of women?

Bonus: Watch how the right-wing responds versus everyone else, then tell me which side is more authoritarian.

 

[Josie]

Both humans have value. The government should protect the rights of both. If the mother is dying because of the pregnancy, then an abortion is needed unless the child has reached viability. If the child is suffering everything should be done to help him/her. If he/she will have lifelong suffering with no quality of life, then an abortion is compassionate, just like turning off life support for your suffering mother is compassionate. If a rape has occurred, then obviously that's a huge blow to the mental health of the mother and continuing the pregnancy will only make things worse for her health, then an abortion might be necessary.

 

[Loulit01]

To be clear, the only right and freedom we're talking about here is abortion. IMHO, I'd be just fine letting women decide.

 

[Gordy327]

During the pregnancy process, when should government step in and restrict the rights and freedoms of women?

Never!

 

[Gordy327]

Both humans have value

What's the value?

The government should protect the rights of both.

The unborn do not have any rights.

If the mother is dying because of the pregnancy, then an abortion is needed unless the child has reached viability.

An abortion is needed if the woman decides it is. Even if her health or life is at stake, she must still consent to any procedure. Are you saying the woman cannot have an abortion once viability is reached, even if her life is in jeopardy?

If the child is suffering everything should be done to help him/her. If he/she will have lifelong suffering with no quality of life, then an abortion is compassionate, just like turning off life support for your suffering mother is compassionate.

There is no child in an abortion. Neither does it suffer. It's the pregnant woman who suffers. What about compassion for her? Whats compassionate about forcing a woman to gestate against her will by the state? Thats not compassionate. That's authoritarianism.

If a rape has occurred, then obviously that's a huge blow to the mental health of the mother and continuing the pregnancy will only make things worse for her health, then an abortion might be necessary.

While rape is terrible, to put it mildly, it's still the woman's choice to gestate or not.

 

[Gordy327]

To be clear, the only right and freedom we're talking about here is abortion. IMHO, I'd be just fine letting women decide.

As it should be.

 

[Individual]

The Rights? Never!

 

[Lursa]

During the pregnancy process, when should government step in and restrict the rights and freedoms of women?

Bonus: Watch how the right-wing responds versus everyone else, then tell me which side is more authoritarian.

For me, the question for those that are anti-abortion almost always goes unanswered is

If the pregnancy should be controlled by the govt, at what point in the pregnancy is it acceptable to kill the unborn, based on the development or status of the unborn? What # of weeks makes a difference and why are those/that distinctions significant?

Anyone? What do you think?

 

[Allan]

Never!

As it should be.

Absolutely. A woman and her doctor are in the best position to make an informed decision.

 

[Lursa]

Both humans have value. The government should protect the rights of both. If the mother is dying because of the pregnancy, then an abortion is needed unless the child has reached viability. If the child is suffering everything should be done to help him/her. If he/she will have lifelong suffering with no quality of life, then an abortion is compassionate, just like turning off life support for your suffering mother is compassionate. If a rape has occurred, then obviously that's a huge blow to the mental health of the mother and continuing the pregnancy will only make things worse for her health, then an abortion might be necessary.

Why didnt you address the rights of women, which the OP asked? You've acknowledged the law, that the unborn have no rights.

Why should strangers' 'value' for someone else's unborn enable the govt to demand a woman remain pregnant without her consent, at risk for her life, health, and ability to support her family, friends, community in the future?

I'm happy for anyone to answer this , as it's unlikely Josie will see it. I'm open to debate from anyone.

 

[Bodi]

During the pregnancy process, when should government step in and restrict the rights and freedoms of women?

Not at any point. Government should stay completely out of it.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Both humans have value. The government should protect the rights of both. If the mother is dying because of the pregnancy, then an abortion is needed unless the child has reached viability. If the child is suffering everything should be done to help him/her. If he/she will have lifelong suffering with no quality of life, then an abortion is compassionate, just like turning off life support for your suffering mother is compassionate. If a rape has occurred, then obviously that's a huge blow to the mental health of the mother and continuing the pregnancy will only make things worse for her health, then an abortion might be necessary.

When is a threat to the life of the mother determined? By who? Who determines if rape occurred? These are all thresholds designed to be ambiguous to restrict the freedom of the mother.

And you ultimately haven't answered the question: When should government restrict the freedom of women?

 

[Dans La Lune]

The key to winning these arguments is not to argue from a point of compromise. And if I were a Libertarian, not surrendering bodily autonomy should be even more fundamental than Property Rights. Yet time and time again we see Libertarians arguing for state intervention in these essential rights.

 

[Gordy327]

When is a threat to the life of the mother determined? By who?

Usually a doctor.

Who determines if rape occurred?

The woman and the police.

These are all thresholds designed to be ambiguous to restrict the freedom of the mother.

Pregnancy related health threats can happen anytime during a pregnancy, although it is likely more severe or risky the later in gestation. Some states have made thresholds of 6, 12, 15, 20, ect weeks gestation. But there is no explanation for those particular points.

And you ultimately haven't answered the question: When should government restrict the freedom of women?

I answered: Never! (post #4)

 

[BirdinHand]

A ZEF doesn’t have rights.

Born humans do.

Therefore, the answer is never.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Usually a doctor.

Except that if the doctor makes the wrong call they can lose their license or go to prison. Thus they err on the side of protecting themselves rather than health of the mother. And people have died as a result.

The woman and the police.

This forces a woman to report their rape, the police to proactively seek the rapist, and for their to be some form of adjudication on the case. How long does that take? These exemptions ONLY exist for public media consumption. They are not practical exemptions and put the burden on the victim.

Pregnancy related health threats can happen anytime during a pregnancy, although it is likely more severe or risky the later in gestation. Some states have made thresholds of 6, 12, 15, 20, ect weeks gestation. But there is no explanation for those particular points.

I answered: Never! (post #4)

Pregnancy is always a health risk. What's the threshold and would a doctor make a call in favor of the women when the consequences are astronomically stacked against them?

 

[Gordy327]

Except that if the doctor makes the wrong call they can lose their license or go to prison. Thus they err on the side of protecting themselves rather than health of the mother. And people have died as a result.

Doctors in some states are now hesitant to intervene in pregnancy issues out of fear of litigation or imprisonment thanks to anti abortion laws. But doctors are also the ones with the training, skills, and expertise to diagnose and make those calls. As long as they follow medical standards of practice, they should not face legal repercussions.

This forces a woman to report their rape, the police to proactively seek the rapist, and for their to be some form of adjudication on the case. How long does that take? These exemptions ONLY exist for public media consumption. They are not practical exemptions and put the burden on the victim.

Rape is horrible and ideally, a victim will report it. But they do not always do so. Some states do not even allow an exemption for rape.

Pregnancy is always a health risk.

Agreed.

What's the threshold and would a doctor make a call in favor o f the women when the consequences are astronomically stacked against them?

See first statement.

 

[Lursa]

During the pregnancy process, when should government step in and restrict the rights and freedoms of women?

Bonus: Watch how the right-wing responds versus everyone else, then tell me which side is more authoritarian.

Note that few if any of those that are anti-abortion will touch your OP.

They wont even vote.

 

[Josie]

When is a threat to the life of the mother determined? By who?

A doctor, obviously.

Who determines if rape occurred?

The woman who was raped, medical professionals.

And you ultimately haven't answered the question: When should government restrict the freedom of women?

I've answered the question of when I support abortion. I do not support elective abortions.

Now keep trying to get me to say "government restricts freedom of women" by not allowing them to kill their children.

 

[Gordy327]

Now keep trying to get me to say "government restricts freedom of women" by not allowing them to kill their children.

It doesn't matter if you say it or not. Abortion restrictions do limit women's rights and autonomy. There are no children in an abortion. That is just a simple fact.