• 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!

What is the woman's real right?

What is the woman's actual right, regardless of the method used to achieve that right?

  • The right to remove her offspring

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    8

maquiscat

Maquis Admiral
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
16,735
Reaction score
5,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
What is the woman's actual right when it comes to pregnancy and her body? Does she actually have a right to an abortion, or is it that an abortion is currently the only method that will satisfy her actual right?

One of the main argument in support of abortion is the woman's right of bodily autonomy. Per this argument, the woman has the right to determine if and when anyone or anything can take from her bodily resources, and consequentially has the right to withdraw any given permission at any time, except after the fact. But does that fact actually give the woman the right to terminate the offspring as opposed to the termination of the offspring being the result of the exercised right? Right now, at the current level of medical knowledge and technology, at least for the early periods of the pregnancy, abortion is really the only possible solution. After viability, induced labor can satisfy that need as well.

Thus we then dive into the principle of the right. It seem to me that the right itself is not one of termination of the offspring, but of the pregnancy, regardless of whether the offspring lives or not. Which means that if a procedure is developed that is equally or less traumatic to the woman's body, that can end the pregnancy, at any stage of the pregnancy, even while preserving the offspring's life (the how of it is not important here as we are discussing the principle of a right, not whether this theoretical procedure can be actually developed), its existence would mean that abortion itself could be banned without violating the woman's right of bodily autonomy.

For the record, the poll is set up to account for the fact that a surrogate can now carry an offspring that is not hers genetically, via IVF. As such I felt that such a situation needs to be considered when addressing this issue. For the purposes of this particular issue, let us consider whether or not a surrogate can abort/remove an offspring of another person/couple another issue in and of itself.
 

BirdinHand

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 28, 2019
Messages
9,293
Reaction score
8,546
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Surrogates are bound by contractual law. They cannot simply terminate a pregnancy without facing legal consequences for doing so (civil liability, not criminal)

As for the rest, a woman is able to decide whether to carry a pregnancy.

Do men think that being pregnant is easy? That a baby just grows and that there is nothing else to it other than that?

Do men not realize the strain on a woman’s heart, muscles, joints, circulatory system, ligaments, etc that pregnancy causes?

A woman has the right to NOT have her entire body strained and changed to carry a pregnancy that she 1. Doesn’t want 2. Is no longer physically safe to carry or 3. Is medically complicated for herself or the baby.

Do men forget that women die from pregnancy, still…to this day? Or from pregnancy related complications? And that other women are left with lifelong health problems including (but not limited to) high blood pressure and diabetes?
 

bluesmoke

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2016
Messages
22,220
Reaction score
7,937
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The right to lower pay for being female.
 

Fabiusbile

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2020
Messages
1,699
Reaction score
428
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
To be honest, I didn't understand the question... as well as actually I can't understand the relevance of this topic in the USA.
It would seem that the arrogant elves of the West, the stronghold of democracy and the highest values of Numenor... but in my Mordor, this issue is not raised on the agenda, and not only with me. In most countries where I have been, this is a long-resolved issue, and for most, the topic of abortion is considered personal and intimate, where the state does not meddle in this area, does not interfere and does not prohibit, this is an important aspect of private life, this is not a reason for jokes and speculation, a serious topic, where every woman or a couple of people privately solves this issue as they see fit.
In my Mordor, the issues of banning abortions are raised exclusively by marginal individuals, radicals, whom few people take seriously and they do not have representatives in the highest echelons of power.

But... where am I an orc to the wise elves...
 

maquiscat

Maquis Admiral
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
16,735
Reaction score
5,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Surrogates are bound by contractual law. They cannot simply terminate a pregnancy without facing legal consequences for doing so (civil liability, not criminal)

While true, what they face is a violation of contractual law, and face no penalties from the abortion itself.

As for the rest, a woman is able to decide whether to carry a pregnancy.

Do men think that being pregnant is easy? That a baby just grows and that there is nothing else to it other than that?

Do men not realize the strain on a woman’s heart, muscles, joints, circulatory system, ligaments, etc that pregnancy causes?

A woman has the right to NOT have her entire body strained and changed to carry a pregnancy that she 1. Doesn’t want 2. Is no longer physically safe to carry or 3. Is medically complicated for herself or the baby.

Do men forget that women die from pregnancy, still…to this day? Or from pregnancy related complications? And that other women are left with lifelong health problems including (but not limited to) high blood pressure and diabetes?

I am guessing that you did not read the OP? What here has anything to do with what I wrote? Did I not make clear that the offspring is removed from the woman, thus ending her pregnancy? What difference does it make whether the offspring itself is terminated or not as long as the woman is no longer pregnant? Do keep in mind the conditions presented.
 

maquiscat

Maquis Admiral
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
16,735
Reaction score
5,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
To be honest, I didn't understand the question... as well as actually I can't understand the relevance of this topic in the USA.
It would seem that the arrogant elves of the West, the stronghold of democracy and the highest values of Numenor... but in my Mordor, this issue is not raised on the agenda, and not only with me. In most countries where I have been, this is a long-resolved issue, and for most, the topic of abortion is considered personal and intimate, where the state does not meddle in this area, does not interfere and does not prohibit, this is an important aspect of private life, this is not a reason for jokes and speculation, a serious topic, where every woman or a couple of people privately solves this issue as they see fit.
In my Mordor, the issues of banning abortions are raised exclusively by marginal individuals, radicals, whom few people take seriously and they do not have representatives in the highest echelons of power.

But... where am I an orc to the wise elves...
What is there not to understand? In defending a right, one has to know what the right actually is, and to be able to separate it out from what might be needed to exercise the right. Take for example my right to life, and then let's compare it to my right to bear arms. In the later case, I can choose to exercise that right by NOT purchasing and bearing arms. Likewise, one would think that a person can exercise their right to life by ending it. It's their life after all. The question here is not one of whether or not a woman should be allowed to end her pregnancy, but if that right to do so requires a given procedure be protected, when another procedure exists that simultaneously ends the pregnancy and maintains the life of the offspring.

Well enough for now....I'm off to second breakfast.
 

weaver2

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2019
Messages
11,821
Reaction score
8,723
Location
Oregon's High Desert
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What is the woman's actual right when it comes to pregnancy and her body? Does she actually have a right to an abortion, or is it that an abortion is currently the only method that will satisfy her actual right?
from the Supreme Court's decision
58
"Although the results are divided, most of these courts have agreed that the right of privacy, however based, is broad enough to cover the abortion decision; that the right, nonetheless, is not absolute and is subject to some limitations; and that at some point the state interests as to protection of health, medical standards, and prenatal life, become dominant. We agree with this approach."

79
"We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation."

121
'The asserted state interests are protection of the health and safety of the pregnant woman, and protection of the potential future human life within her. These are legitimate objectives, amply sufficient to permit a State to regulate abortions as it does other surgical procedures, and perhaps sufficient to permit a State to regulate abortions more stringently or even to prohibit them in the late stages of pregnancy. But such legislation is not before us, and I think the Court today has thoroughly demonstrated that these state interests cannot constitutionally support the broad abridgment of personal liberty worked by the existing Texas law. Accordingly, I join the Court's opinion holding that that law (Texas' ban on abortion) is invalid under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.'
 

Irredentist

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 22, 2019
Messages
6,391
Reaction score
3,194
Gender
Male
What is the woman's actual right when it comes to pregnancy and her body? Does she actually have a right to an abortion, or is it that an abortion is currently the only method that will satisfy her actual right?

One of the main argument in support of abortion is the woman's right of bodily autonomy. Per this argument, the woman has the right to determine if and when anyone or anything can take from her bodily resources, and consequentially has the right to withdraw any given permission at any time, except after the fact. But does that fact actually give the woman the right to terminate the offspring as opposed to the termination of the offspring being the result of the exercised right? Right now, at the current level of medical knowledge and technology, at least for the early periods of the pregnancy, abortion is really the only possible solution. After viability, induced labor can satisfy that need as well.

Thus we then dive into the principle of the right. It seem to me that the right itself is not one of termination of the offspring, but of the pregnancy, regardless of whether the offspring lives or not. Which means that if a procedure is developed that is equally or less traumatic to the woman's body, that can end the pregnancy, at any stage of the pregnancy, even while preserving the offspring's life (the how of it is not important here as we are discussing the principle of a right, not whether this theoretical procedure can be actually developed), its existence would mean that abortion itself could be banned without violating the woman's right of bodily autonomy.

For the record, the poll is set up to account for the fact that a surrogate can now carry an offspring that is not hers genetically, via IVF. As such I felt that such a situation needs to be considered when addressing this issue. For the purposes of this particular issue, let us consider whether or not a surrogate can abort/remove an offspring of another person/couple another issue in and of itself.
In my opinion, viewing abortion itself, or the termination of a pregnancy, as a "right" is actually the wrong way of approaching the issue. Abortion is not a right that needs to be granted to women by the government. It is an ability that women possess due to their status as the bearers of pregnancy. There is no human law that can change this fundamental fact of human biology. And so long as women retain that status, they alone have the power to decide whether to carry that pregnancy to term. Philosophers and lawmakers can argue as they wish over the ethics and morality of abortion, and the value of unborn life. But none of that changes the fundamental facts of human biology.
 

Nomad4Ever

The tolerant left? I'm the intolerant left.
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2017
Messages
7,963
Reaction score
9,619
Location
U.S.A.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
I mean, I think it is both. It's in her body, so whatever medical procedure she decides.
 

BirdinHand

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 28, 2019
Messages
9,293
Reaction score
8,546
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
I am guessing that you did not read the OP? What here has anything to do with what I wrote? Did I not make clear that the offspring is removed from the woman, thus ending her pregnancy? What difference does it make whether the offspring itself is terminated or not as long as the woman is no longer pregnant? Do keep in mind the conditions presented.

What is there not to understand? In defending a right, one has to know what the right actually is, and to be able to separate it out from what might be needed to exercise the right.

It's their life after all. The question here is not one of whether or not a woman should be allowed to end her pregnancy, but if that right to do so requires a given procedure be protected, when another procedure exists that simultaneously ends the pregnancy and maintains the life of the offspring.

There is no "other procedure".

It doesn't exist.

So my question is, why keep kicking this dead horse?
Why is this even a topic that you are so fascinated with and seemingly hung up on?

Don't want an abortion? Don't have one.
Don't want to be 'responsible' for an abortion? Don't have sex. That's a 100% guarantee that there's zero possibility for an abortion.
 

Patriotic Voter

Christian Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
23,776
Reaction score
6,621
Location
Alachua County, FL
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
None of the choices exactly match my views because "regardless of the method used" allows the mom to commit a violent act or use illegal drugs with the intent to kill her offspring. She has a right to tell a NICU doctor to "pull the plug" if a preemie is nonviable. I doubt she has the right to kill a viable preemie by suffocating it, however. During pregnancy, the mom has a right to smoke until her offspring dies, but not the right to kill it by getting addicted to alcohol or opiates.

Her right is specifically to have a safe abortion, Not just have an abortion, but have one at a medical facility where most likely no physical harm is done to her body, or by taking two very specific FDA-approved drugs 2-3 days apart.
 

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
74,991
Reaction score
25,331
Location
Pittsburgh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
What is the woman's actual right when it comes to pregnancy and her body? Does she actually have a right to an abortion, or is it that an abortion is currently the only method that will satisfy her actual right?

One of the main argument in support of abortion is the woman's right of bodily autonomy. Per this argument, the woman has the right to determine if and when anyone or anything can take from her bodily resources, and consequentially has the right to withdraw any given permission at any time, except after the fact. But does that fact actually give the woman the right to terminate the offspring as opposed to the termination of the offspring being the result of the exercised right? Right now, at the current level of medical knowledge and technology, at least for the early periods of the pregnancy, abortion is really the only possible solution. After viability, induced labor can satisfy that need as well.

Thus we then dive into the principle of the right. It seem to me that the right itself is not one of termination of the offspring, but of the pregnancy, regardless of whether the offspring lives or not. Which means that if a procedure is developed that is equally or less traumatic to the woman's body, that can end the pregnancy, at any stage of the pregnancy, even while preserving the offspring's life (the how of it is not important here as we are discussing the principle of a right, not whether this theoretical procedure can be actually developed), its existence would mean that abortion itself could be banned without violating the woman's right of bodily autonomy.

For the record, the poll is set up to account for the fact that a surrogate can now carry an offspring that is not hers genetically, via IVF. As such I felt that such a situation needs to be considered when addressing this issue. For the purposes of this particular issue, let us consider whether or not a surrogate can abort/remove an offspring of another person/couple another issue in and of itself.


I dont know if any of your answers fit per say

A woman has legal, equal and civil rights as a legal person (woman) . . . . . she also has human rights for those that believe in them and a right to life
so im not sure saying "right to emove her offspring only if it is in her body" is an accurate one . . . . its kinda like a situation and not a right

like the right to self-defense. . .i wouldnt call it the right to hit somebody in the head with a crow bar 5 times but only if they have broken into your house" its kind of convoluted and not accurate lol

What we do know is forcing a women against her will to risk her health and life is most certainly violating her rights and it would treat her as a second class citizen

because of the location of the ZEF there is no way to grant equal rights in this case, there is no way to grant human rights in this case because one will always lose and be the lesser. Abortion is its own unique thing because of location of the second life.

SO I said with the already born viable woman vs an unknown that may even self abort

as to the angle of technology etc its still a matter of her body and risk. So until we invent an artificial womb and teleportation and that procedure is proven to be basically zero risk it would have no impact on my abortion stance and a woman's right to protect herself, health and life along with her own body.
 

weaver2

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2019
Messages
11,821
Reaction score
8,723
Location
Oregon's High Desert
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That is so non-sequitur.
But it is a part of the whole lack of respect for women held by so many men, including those who make the laws that keep pay unequal, ban abortions, deny certain contraceptives, harass with impunity, ignore the raper and punish the woman, repeal Roe, refuse to vote for the ERA.

"Of my two 'handicaps', being female put many more obstacles in my path than being black." Shirley Chisholm Black politician
 

maquiscat

Maquis Admiral
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
16,735
Reaction score
5,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
from the Supreme Court's decision
58
"Although the results are divided, most of these courts have agreed that the right of privacy, however based, is broad enough to cover the abortion decision; that the right, nonetheless, is not absolute and is subject to some limitations; and that at some point the state interests as to protection of health, medical standards, and prenatal life, become dominant. We agree with this approach."

79
"We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation."

121
'The asserted state interests are protection of the health and safety of the pregnant woman, and protection of the potential future human life within her. These are legitimate objectives, amply sufficient to permit a State to regulate abortions as it does other surgical procedures, and perhaps sufficient to permit a State to regulate abortions more stringently or even to prohibit them in the late stages of pregnancy. But such legislation is not before us, and I think the Court today has thoroughly demonstrated that these state interests cannot constitutionally support the broad abridgment of personal liberty worked by the existing Texas law. Accordingly, I join the Court's opinion holding that that law (Texas' ban on abortion) is invalid under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.'
None of that answered the question I asked.
 

maquiscat

Maquis Admiral
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
16,735
Reaction score
5,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
In my opinion, viewing abortion itself, or the termination of a pregnancy, as a "right" is actually the wrong way of approaching the issue. Abortion is not a right that needs to be granted to women by the government. It is an ability that women possess due to their status as the bearers of pregnancy. There is no human law that can change this fundamental fact of human biology. And so long as women retain that status, they alone have the power to decide whether to carry that pregnancy to term. Philosophers and lawmakers can argue as they wish over the ethics and morality of abortion, and the value of unborn life. But none of that changes the fundamental facts of human biology.
Like @weaver2 you did not address the question asked. In my question I do not assert that the woman does not have the right to choose whether to carry to term or not. I asked if she had the right to the abortion procedure itself, IF another procedure is available to also allows her to end the pregnancy, even if it leaves the offspring alive.
 

maquiscat

Maquis Admiral
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
16,735
Reaction score
5,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
There is no "other procedure".

It doesn't exist.

So my question is, why keep kicking this dead horse?
Why is this even a topic that you are so fascinated with and seemingly hung up on?

Don't want an abortion? Don't have one.
Don't want to be 'responsible' for an abortion? Don't have sex. That's a 100% guarantee that there's zero possibility for an abortion.
Again, I am exploring what her actual right is, not what is currently only available to allow her to exercise that right. You still failed to read what was put out and have to strawman in order to put out what you want.

the how of it is not important here as we are discussing the principle of a right, not whether this theoretical procedure can be actually developed

Answer the question presented, not the one you want to answer. Remember that I have been consistently pro-choice in every other thread on abortion we have been in together, and even now the question presented does not take away any ability of the woman to choose to not bear the offspring to term.
 

Liberal7360

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 16, 2021
Messages
2,859
Reaction score
3,994
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
What is there not to understand? In defending a right, one has to know what the right actually is, and to be able to separate it out from what might be needed to exercise the right. Take for example my right to life, and then let's compare it to my right to bear arms. In the later case, I can choose to exercise that right by NOT purchasing and bearing arms. Likewise, one would think that a person can exercise their right to life by ending it. It's their life after all. The question here is not one of whether or not a woman should be allowed to end her pregnancy, but if that right to do so requires a given procedure be protected, when another procedure exists that simultaneously ends the pregnancy and maintains the life of the offspring.

Well enough for now....I'm off to second breakfast.


That other procedure you describe doesn't exist.

I don't know of any procedure that can take a zygote out of one woman and implant it into another woman.

I don't understand why you are bringing something that can't happen into this debate.
 

maquiscat

Maquis Admiral
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
16,735
Reaction score
5,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I mean, I think it is both. It's in her body, so whatever medical procedure she decides.
Do we actually get to choose all possible procedures that can be done? Should I be allowed to get any of the banned procedures?
Can any doctor be forced to perform or qualify on any procedure he does not wish to do?

So we come back to the question, as long as there is a procedure available that is equally or less physically traumatic to the woman's body than abortion, does a woman actually have a right to the abortion procedure or does she only have a right to have the pregnancy ended?
 

Liberal7360

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 16, 2021
Messages
2,859
Reaction score
3,994
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Like @weaver2 you did not address the question asked. In my question I do not assert that the woman does not have the right to choose whether to carry to term or not. I asked if she had the right to the abortion procedure itself, IF another procedure is available to also allows her to end the pregnancy, even if it leaves the offspring alive.


She has the right to terminate a pregnancy if there is this fictional "procedure" you talk about exists or not.

It doesn't exist.

If it did, yes any woman who wants an abortion has the right to reproductive freedom.
 

maquiscat

Maquis Admiral
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
16,735
Reaction score
5,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
None of the choices exactly match my views because "regardless of the method used" allows the mom to commit a violent act or use illegal drugs with the intent to kill her offspring.

Given that she could just as easily use legal drugs for the same purpose, the issue of the legality of the drugs is a separate issue. Remember that there are literally abortion drugs out there.

She has a right to tell a NICU doctor to "pull the plug" if a preemie is nonviable. I doubt she has the right to kill a viable preemie by suffocating it, however.

This is a non-sequiter given it has nothing to do with abortion nor bodily autonomy of the woman.

Her right is specifically to have a safe abortion, Not just have an abortion, but have one at a medical facility where most likely no physical harm is done to her body, or by taking two very specific FDA-approved drugs 2-3 days apart.
A right to safe procedures I will agree with, but to any procedure just because she wishes it?
 

maquiscat

Maquis Admiral
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
16,735
Reaction score
5,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
But it is a part of the whole lack of respect for women held by so many men, including those who make the laws that keep pay unequal, ban abortions, deny certain contraceptives, harass with impunity, ignore the raper and punish the woman, repeal Roe, refuse to vote for the ERA.

"Of my two 'handicaps', being female put many more obstacles in my path than being black." Shirley Chisholm Black politician
So how is what I am asking lacking respect for women?
 

Liberal7360

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 16, 2021
Messages
2,859
Reaction score
3,994
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Do we actually get to choose all possible procedures that can be done? Should I be allowed to get any of the banned procedures?
Can any doctor be forced to perform or qualify on any procedure he does not wish to do?

So we come back to the question, as long as there is a procedure available that is equally or less physically traumatic to the woman's body than abortion, does a woman actually have a right to the abortion procedure or does she only have a right to have the pregnancy ended?



A woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy and not put it in another woman if that is her choice.

If a woman wants to remove a zygote from her body then put it in another woman's body she should have the right to do that.

It's all up to the woman. No one else.

But let me know when it's possible for a woman to choose to remove a zygote from her body to put it into another woman's body and it results in a live birth.

It's not going to happen in our lifetime.

I don't understand why you are asking this question. It can't happen.
 

maquiscat

Maquis Admiral
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
16,735
Reaction score
5,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
That other procedure you describe doesn't exist.

I don't know of any procedure that can take a zygote out of one woman and implant it into another woman.

I don't understand why you are bringing something that can't happen into this debate.
It's probably due to an inability to read and/or comprehend.
maquiscat said:
the how of it is not important here as we are discussing the principle of a right, not whether this theoretical procedure can be actually developed

Apologies for the sloppy quoting. Things don't work as well on my phone as the laptop.
 
Top Bottom