What is the woman's real right?

[minnie616]

And then what would be the difference if the woman has the offspring removed from her body but taken by the father because she didn't want it? She is not forced to be a parent or into motherhood, by @soylentgreen 's words, but you can squeeze all the money you want out of the wee lass.

Now we finally get to real reason you want to take away the woman’s right to an abortion.

All the fantasy about teleportation of an embryo was just way to deny a woman to her right of an abortion.

 

[minnie616]

I know you keep going back to the whole "the courts ruled it a right" thing, but we have plenty of examples of where the court says one thing for years and later turns it on its ears. So why could they not later turn around and say that the right is actually limited to the removal of the offspring from the woman's body and does not included termination as a right? Hell, that premise doesn't even claim termination might not be an option, just not a right.

Correct.
Roe v Wade declared Abortion is Right.

The United Nations declares that Abortion is a right.

From the following

https://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=27457&LangID=E



United States: UN experts denounce further attacks against right to safe abortion and Supreme Court complicity


GENEVA (14 September 2021) – UN human rights experts* today denounced a recently enacted law that effectively bans abortion as early as six weeks of pregnancy and includes an unprecedented provision that encourages private individuals to file lawsuits against those involved in abortion procedures.
"This law is alarming. It bans abortion before many women even know they are pregnant" the experts said. The law contains no exception for pregnancies that result from rape or incest, or for foetal health conditions that are incompatible with sustained life after birth. The only exception is for a medical emergency.
Texas State Senate Bill 8 (S.B. 8), which was signed by Texas Governor on 19 May and entered into force on 1 September 2021, will cause severe harm to pregnant women in Texas who seek abortion considering that approximately 90% of women who obtain abortions in Texas are at least six weeks pregnant. "Nearly all abortions are now prohibited in a state where abortion was already extremely difficult to access" the experts said.

Read more in the link

 

[soylentgreen]

Abortion is a right.

You seem to forget the mental agony many unwed teens went through in the 50s and 60s when they were forced into unwed homes and then had to give up their newborns for adoption.

Even today only about 1 percent of women give up their newborn for adoption and many of those given up for adoption are special needs children born with mental or physical disabilities or addictions.

Very few choose abortion just because they do not want to remain pregnant.

Abortion is a decision not a right. The right that needs to be enacted here is the right to decide something for one own self. So it is not really forgetting the consequences of banning abortion. It is acknowledging the fundamental aspect that only the pregnant woman has the right to make that decision.

 

[soylentgreen]

You mentioned treating women like second class citizens.

That reminded me of an Essay written by a doctor who use to treat patients trying to repair the damage that was caused by illegal abortions.

He said his specialty was spent in New York City, from 1948 to1953, in two of the city’s large municipal hospitals.

He summed his article by writing:

It is important to remember that Roe v. Wade did not mean thatabortions could be performed. They have always been done, dating from ancient Greek days.

What Roe said was that ending a pregnancy could be carried out by medical personnel, in a medically accepted setting, thusconferring on women, finally, the full rights of first-classcitizens -- and freeing their doctors to treat them as such.

ESSAY: Repairing the damage done before Roe

As Supreme Court becomes more conservative, worries arise about setbacks to precedent-setting case 35 years ago

www.sandiegouniontribune.com

History always needs to be seen in context. As noble as the words are they were said in a time when a group consisting only of males would show up at a woman's health discussion. Still happens, but back then no one would have pointed out what is now obvious.

 

[soylentgreen]

But you can force a man? So then you actually want unequal rights.

No one forces a man to become a parent. I think the problem here will be how we define parent. i am defining it as a person who literally takes the responsibility to raise a child. I suspect your defining it as an emotional plea to pretend the burden is greater for the male than it actually is.

 

[choiceone]

Abortion is a decision not a right. The right that needs to be enacted here is the right to decide something for one own self. So it is not really forgetting the consequences of banning abortion. It is acknowledging the fundamental aspect that only the pregnant woman has the right to make that decision.

I agree, but with this caveat.

When a woman with an advanced pregnancy is in the hospital unconscious and doctors have to decide what to do, as the woman has not made a living will what to do if her life/health is challenged, they turn to next of kin.

I still remember the film Absolute Strangers (1991), based on a true story of a husband who tried to keep his wife alive and the horrible anti-abortion people who took him to court.

We have to decide an order of decision makers. For me, the constitution stipulates that the woman gets to make the decision if she can, i.e., is conscious or has made a living will, and then people who actually care about her well-being, not absolute strangers who don't care if she dies or is tortured, etc.

 

[soylentgreen]

I agree, but with this caveat.

When a woman with an advanced pregnancy is in the hospital unconscious and doctors have to decide what to do, as the woman has not made a living will what to do if her life/health is challenged, they turn to next of kin.

I still remember the film Absolute Strangers (1991), based on a true story of a husband who tried to keep his wife alive and the horrible anti-abortion people who took him to court.

We have to decide an order of decision makers. For me, the constitution stipulates that the woman gets to make the decision if she can, i.e., is conscious or has made a living will, and then people who actually care about her well-being, not absolute strangers who don't care if she dies or is tortured, etc.

There will always be an exception to the rule situation.

 

[Lursa]

Now we finally get to real reason you want to take away the woman’s right to an abortion.

All the fantasy about teleportation of an embryo was just way to deny a woman to her right of an abortion.

And, it appears, allow men to get a child, or at least responsibility for half a child, depending on what other legal implications he picks and chooses from.

Right now, without him changing any laws or refusing to accept current "legal authority," a man could not even confirm that the unborn inside the woman is his. He cannot compel her to allow the invasive procedure of getting DNA from the unborn...so he'd have zero "right" or entitlement to have her do anything with her pregnancy, hypothetical or not.

I guess the govt could, it seems he's still trying to wiggle around to deny her a choice of abortion, but the man would have no say in it. It would be a govt use of force against the woman...and the govt would have to justify it legally. I'm still interested in what that justification would be.

 

[maquiscat]

No one forces a man to become a parent. I think the problem here will be how we define parent. i am defining it as a person who literally takes the responsibility to raise a child. I suspect your defining it as an emotional plea to pretend the burden is greater for the male than it actually is.

Legally speaking it is a person who is the genetic parent of the offspring unless another steps in to assume that responsibility, and with it the parental rights. Whatever label you want to give the person, when you take the issue of the offspring in the woman's body out of the equation (i.e. the offspring is out of her body), then the rights need to be equal. This burden should be no greater or less for either. If a woman can decide to bring the offspring to term, and in turn cause the man to have responsibility for the child, then likewise, as long as the woman is not forced to keep the offspring in her own body, he too should be able to decide to bring the offspring to term, the same as the woman. As long as the woman is not forced to continue the gestation, why should he not have that same right?

 

[minnie616]

Legally speaking it is a person who is the genetic parent of the offspring unless another steps in to assume that responsibility, and with it the parental rights. Whatever label you want to give the person, when you take the issue of the offspring in the woman's body out of the equation (i.e. the offspring is out of her body), then the rights need to be equal. This burden should be no greater or less for either. If a woman can decide to bring the offspring to term, and in turn cause the man to have responsibility for the child, then likewise, as long as the woman is not forced to keep the offspring in her own body, he too should be able to decide to bring the offspring to term, the same as the woman. As long as the woman is not forced to continue the gestation, why should not have the same right.

And, it appears, allow men to get a child, or at least responsibility for half a child, depending on what other legal implications he picks and chooses from.

Right now, without him changing any laws or refusing to accept current "legal authority," a man could not even confirm that the unborn inside the woman is his. He cannot compel her to allow the invasive procedure of getting DNA from the unborn...so he'd have zero "right" or entitlement to have her do anything with her pregnancy, hypothetical or not.

I guess the govt could, it seems he's still trying to wiggle around to deny her a choice of abortion, but the man would have no say in it. It would be a govt use of force against the woman...and the govt would have to justify it legally. I'm still interested in what that justification would be.

Did you read the above post written by Lursa?

Perhaps you either did not understand it or you just continue to ignore inconvenient facts.

 

[soylentgreen]

Legally speaking it is a person who is the genetic parent of the offspring unless another steps in to assume that responsibility, and with it the parental rights. Whatever label you want to give the person, when you take the issue of the offspring in the woman's body out of the equation (i.e. the offspring is out of her body), then the rights need to be equal. This burden should be no greater or less for either. If a woman can decide to bring the offspring to term, and in turn cause the man to have responsibility for the child, then likewise, as long as the woman is not forced to keep the offspring in her own body, he too should be able to decide to bring the offspring to term, the same as the woman. As long as the woman is not forced to continue the gestation, why should he not have that same right?

Legally speaking the full title is the biological parent which is different from a parent who actually takes care of a child.
The rights do not need to be equal as the responsibility is not equal. Nor are the physical and mental effects of not only being pregnant but also the raising of a child. The man is often given no responsibility for the raising of the child. The law only demands that a man be held responsible for his own actions not those of a child or the mother. What a woman decides has no bearing on the mans own actions.
His right to prevent a pregnancy was at the point just before he screwed the woman. Rights may be equal but that does not mean they must be the same.

Only she can get pregnant, only he can get her pregnant. Why should two different acts be given the same rights?

 

[bluesmoke]

That is so non-sequitur.

The extent of bodily autonomy, a pertinent point in your OP, is decided by a male world. Because a person has the body of a female, that they are female, guarantees lower pay. That's a fact. Employers are the ones that decide that. Employers are dominated, by far, by males. There are no statistics of outcome that support a woman's right to equal pay. The statistics prove that women get lesser pay. That's because their autonomy, just because they are bodily female, is determined by men. You, obviously, don't get that. The SNARK went clear over your head, as did the substance.

 

[choiceone]

There will always be an exception to the rule situation.

We can't have this unless we can make every possible exception, because law is unbending.

 

[soylentgreen]

We can't have this unless we can make every possible exception, because law is unbending.

That is why we have courts of law with lawyers to argue the pro's and con's instead of a judge simply deciding law based on a book.

 

[choiceone]

That is why we have courts of law with lawyers to argue the pro's and con's instead of a judge simply deciding law based on a book.

Yes, but arguing won't work if it holds up an abortion, because pregnancy continues unless you stop it.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Yes, but you have to remember that Becker and DeWine weren't interested in what is medically possible.

They are interested in pandering to their base of pig-ignorant evangelical fruitcakes.

You are insulting pigs, which are actually intelligent.

 

[maquiscat]

I am going to have to back out of my own thread here. My apologies to those whose post I'm leaving hanging. Most of you are people whom I've respected for much of the decade that I have been here, or however long you've been here. So I don't want to give half arse responses. But I am finding more and more time being taking up by other RL concerns. I'll be putting comments in threads here and there, but I don't have the time to give the posts here the consideration they deserve, or the research needed to do them justice, poor as my skills there are. Hopefully, things will settle down so I can be back to my usual posting frequency soon. This isn't my first semi-hiatus, and I doubt it will be the last.

 

[LostinThought]

And then what would be the difference if the woman has the offspring removed from her body but taken by the father because she didn't want it? She is not forced to be a parent or into motherhood, by @soylentgreen 's words, but you can squeeze all the money you want out of the wee lass.

If that were the option, most would be more than willing to take it. Although, it's more than usual that she would not be pressed for any kind of payment either, especially given what state she resides in.

If she never wanted the child in the first place, she should have used contraception.

 

[Lursa]

I am going to have to back out of my own thread here. My apologies to those whose post I'm leaving hanging. Most of you are people whom I've respected for much of the decade that I have been here, or however long you've been here. So I don't want to give half arse responses. But I am finding more and more time being taking up by other RL concerns. I'll be putting comments in threads here and there, but I don't have the time to give the posts here the consideration they deserve, or the research needed to do them justice, poor as my skills there are. Hopefully, things will settle down so I can be back to my usual posting frequency soon. This isn't my first semi-hiatus, and I doubt it will be the last.

Time off is always understandable. Not honestly acknowledging the responses and counter-arguments that were valid to your OP is less so. IMO, you refused to come clean on your true motives for your OP. One of which IMO was never ever answering my questions on why you were bobbing and weaving so much to answer why a woman had a right to terminate a pregnancy, but not kill the unborn in doing so...which you would not address. Period. And then of course, what was more obvious, trying to work around women's rights to find a means for men to have a right to have a say in a woman's pregnancy. It would have been more honest to say so, instead of convolutions for hundreds of posts.

Just my take on it.

 

[minnie616]

I am going to have to back out of my own thread here. My apologies to those whose post I'm leaving hanging. Most of you are people whom I've respected for much of the decade that I have been here, or however long you've been here. So I don't want to give half arse responses. But I am finding more and more time being taking up by other RL concerns. I'll be putting comments in threads here and there, but I don't have the time to give the posts here the consideration they deserve, or the research needed to do them justice, poor as my skills there are. Hopefully, things will settle down so I can be back to my usual posting frequency soon. This isn't my first semi-hiatus, and I doubt it will be the last.

Thanks for letting us know.
I am hoping your RL concerns become less and things reach near normal soon.

Best of Luck to you and your loved ones.

 

[maquiscat]

Thanks for letting us know.
I am hoping your RL concerns become less and things reach near normal soon.

Best of Luck to you and your loved ones.

Eh, they're not all bad, just time consuming. We have a new house and there is a lot of update to do on it. Throw in we have to watch the grandkids on a regular basis, and I just get this cycle of free time and busy.

 

[choiceone]

If that were the option, most would be more than willing to take it. Although, it's more than usual that she would not be pressed for any kind of payment either, especially given what state she resides in.

If she never wanted the child in the first place, she should have used contraception.

If she did use contraception and got pregnant anyway, then what?
If she was raped by force, then what?

 

[LostinThought]

If she did use contraception and got pregnant anyway, then what?
If she was raped by force, then what?

Then she's just as free to have an abortion or give the child up for adoption. I'm by no means an absolutist on this subject.
Men, have no such luxury in this regard. If he used protection and did not want to have the child. She could easily carry it to term and then squeeze him for all the money she wants. And if he doe not pay, even for something that "He" did not want. Then he can either be sent to jail or punished in some other punitive measure. That or he could do his best to just disappear, which is strangely a popular choice.