What is the woman's real right?

[maquiscat]

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.

How exactly would the existence of this hypothetical procedure and the simultaneous banning of abortion violate a woman's right of reproductive freedom?

 

[Irredentist]

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.

Again, I do not believe that the question is one of rights at all. The question should be, does a woman have the ability to access such a procedure? Can she find a doctor to perform it? Will the procedure be safe? Women do not require a right in order to abort their pregnancies. All they require is safe access.

 

[weaver2]

So how is what I am asking lacking respect for women?

It's not. Bluesmoke said one of the rights of women was to be paid less than men. You said that was a non sequitur. I noted that it was part of the women's rights question.

 

[weaver2]

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.

Your thread title asks what is the women's real right(to abortion) but the poll questions are just setting up a discussion of your non-existent zygote removal operation.

Get back to us when that operation becomes a reality.

Mean while the actual right identified by Roe is being threatened by a very loud, sexist religious, minority way more interested in punishing women than in saving little innocent fetuses. If Roe is overturned and the right of women to make decisions about their own reproduction is taken over by a religious minority working with the state, it might be smart to wonder what else this religious minority is interested in controlling.

 

[soylentgreen]

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.

Treatment for infertility is to take a dozen eggs from a female and fertalise them. Under modern techniques the doctors can actually see which of those eggs are viable. So what we have is a maybe ten eggs are viable but only one is chosen to put back into the womb and the rest are thrown out.

So we ban the abortion of the remaining eggs and are left with ten or so unwanted children. Or parents burdened with more children than they can handle. Or we force other women to carry the pregnancy.

Why would we do that?

 

[Lursa]

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.

Yes it is about a woman's right to bodily autonomy.

Technology doesnt matter. Even if, someday, it's possible to remove an embryo or fetus, and incubate it elsewhere, the woman still must consent to the removal procedure. It's still about her bodily autonomy.

And then of course, there are legal and practical/financial reasons that follow and would also impact her decision.

--any future financial or other obligation to the unborn​

​

--concern for the conditions under which, once born, the child would be raised. The father? An institution? Foster care? If she considers any/all as poor or even damaging, she may choose not to facilitate it.​

​

--ethical considerations the woman might have regarding adding more people to the planet​

​

--etc.​

OTOH, such technology would be wonderful for couples/women that cannot carry a pregnancy due to health conditions, etc.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

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.

You are talking to a misogynist who thinks women should never have any reproductive rights.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Treatment for infertility is to take a dozen eggs from a female and fertalise them. Under modern techniques the doctors can actually see which of those eggs are viable. So what we have is a maybe ten eggs are viable but only one is chosen to put back into the womb and the rest are thrown out.

So we ban the abortion of the remaining eggs and are left with ten or so unwanted children. Or parents burdened with more children than they can handle. Or we force other women to carry the pregnancy.

Why would we do that?

No more than two eggs are allowed to be fertilized by law. The guy who gave Octomom six fertilized ova lost his medical license after she gave birth. (There were eight fetuses because she has two sets of identical twins from that pregnancy.)

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Yes it is about a woman's right to bodily autonomy.

Technology doesn't matter. Even if, someday, it's possible to remove an embryo or fetus, and incubate it elsewhere, the woman still must consent to the removal procedure. It's still about her bodily autonomy.

Technology does matter, but is still less important than bodily autonomy. The benefit of technology plays a role in her decision no matter what she decides.

OTOH, such technology would be wonderful for couples/women that cannot carry a pregnancy due to health conditions, etc.

I remember you were strongly opposed to my idea when I suggested women who learn early in their pregnancies they medically cannot go through until viability have their embryos transplanted to others who want to adopt, with initial studies being on identical twins to minimize the risk of organ transplant rejection. Do you still feel that way?

 

[Lursa]

Technology does matter, but is still less important than bodily autonomy. The benefit of technology plays a role in her decision no matter what she decides.

It may affect her decision but the OP is about what right? I wrote 'bodily autonomy.' And it does not change the fact that no matter what the technology, it still requires her consent.

I remember you were strongly opposed to my idea when I suggested women who learn early in their pregnancies they medically cannot go through until viability have their embryos transplanted to others who want to adopt, with initial studies being on identical twins to minimize the risk of organ transplant rejection. Do you still feel that way?

I dont remember that and it doesnt sound like me.

 

[maquiscat]

Again, I do not believe that the question is one of rights at all. The question should be, does a woman have the ability to access such a procedure? Can she find a doctor to perform it? Will the procedure be safe? Women do not require a right in order to abort their pregnancies. All they require is safe access.

The lack of ability/availability is separate from her rights. In a similar fashion the lack of anyone creating the facilities she would need for an abortion would be different from someone(s) activitly preventing the existence of such facilities. The former is not in violation of her rights, the later is. What you are addressing is the practical exercising of her rights. I am asking about her rights, and what they specifically are and allow her to do.

 

[maquiscat]

It's not. Bluesmoke said one of the rights of women was to be paid less than men. You said that was a non sequitur. I noted that it was part of the women's rights question.

But it is not part of the woman's reproductive decision rights, which is what was brought up, thus it is non sequitur. He might as well brought up her 2nd amendment rights. It would be every bit as non sequiter.

 

[maquiscat]

Your thread title asks what is the women's real right(to abortion) but the poll questions are just setting up a discussion of your non-existent zygote removal operation.

Get back to us when that operation becomes a reality.

You, like many others, seem to want to ignore this part of my OP

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

 

[maquiscat]

Treatment for infertility is to take a dozen eggs from a female and fertalise them. Under modern techniques the doctors can actually see which of those eggs are viable. So what we have is a maybe ten eggs are viable but only one is chosen to put back into the womb and the rest are thrown out.

So we ban the abortion of the remaining eggs and are left with ten or so unwanted children. Or parents burdened with more children than they can handle. Or we force other women to carry the pregnancy.

Why would we do that?

Since my question has nothing to do about the remaining eggs, this is non sequitur. The eggs not inserted are not in the woman and thus are not making use of her body. As such they are not aborted, since they were never in any body to begin with. Yes, we can claimed them killed or destroyed, but with regard of the topic, they are not aborted.

 

[maquiscat]

Yes it is about a woman's right to bodily autonomy.

Technology doesnt matter. Even if, someday, it's possible to remove an embryo or fetus, and incubate it elsewhere, the woman still must consent to the removal procedure. It's still about her bodily autonomy.

What about anything I wrote takes away from a woman's bodily autonomy?

And then of course, there are legal and practical/financial reasons that follow and would also impact her decision.

--any future financial or other obligation to the unborn​

That would be equal to that of the man.

​

--concern for the conditions under which, once born, the child would be raised. The father? An institution? Foster care? If she considers any/all as poor or even damaging, she may choose not to facilitate it.​

​

--ethical considerations the woman might have regarding adding more people to the planet​

​

--etc.​

OTOH, such technology would be wonderful for couples/women that cannot carry a pregnancy due to health conditions, etc.

Right now they do indeed amount to one and the same, but in exploring the actual right and the principle behind it, we have to question it under the condition of they were not automatically one and the same.

 

[maquiscat]

You are talking to a misogynist who thinks women should never have any reproductive rights.

Last I noticed, @BirdinHand was on the pro-choice side of the issue. Am I confusing her with someone else maybe?

 

[maquiscat]

No more than two eggs are allowed to be fertilized by law. The guy who gave Octomom six fertilized ova lost his medical license after she gave birth. (There were eight fetuses because she has two sets of identical twins from that pregnancy.)

Which law? Federal, the one from your state, or the one from the state she had the procedure done in? Also was that law in effect at that time?

 

[BirdinHand]

Last I noticed, @BirdinHand was on the pro-choice side of the issue. Am I confusing her with someone else maybe?

Definitely pro choice so they have me confused

 

[maquiscat]

Definitely pro choice so they have me confused

Unless they think I am the misogynist, but then they are still confused since you can arrest I've been consistently pro-choice in the other threads.

 

[bluesmoke]

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...

Over here, marginal individuals and radicals are many, not few. Your private life is their business. They determine what private business of yours is for them to decide, not you. I didn't answer the question because my answers, regardless of what is listed, aren't anybody's business.

 

[reinaert]

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.

To have the same lack of restrictions as men.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Which law? Federal, the one from your state, or the one from the state she had the procedure done in? Also was that law in effect at that time?

Maybe not a separate federal law but certainly a regulation for artificial insemination. Give me some time to look it up.

 

[Lursa]

What about anything I wrote takes away from a woman's bodily autonomy?

Any action on or in her body, without her consent. It's not up to anyone else 'how or if that matters'.

That would be equal to that of the man.

Never said otherwise. But knowing that answer could affect her decision. If she'd still be held responsible for any support? If her identity would ever be revealed to the child? Would there be any circumstances where she'd have to interact with the father in the future (decisions, $$, etc)?

Right now they do indeed amount to one and the same, but in exploring the actual right and the principle behind it, we have to question it under the condition of they were not automatically one and the same.

There's no way to access the unborn inside a woman without an invasive procedure. And even if we had transporters, the question would arise...since the unborn has no rights and is not a person...does anyone have the right to take it from her without her consent?

 

[maquiscat]

Any action on or in her body, without her consent. It's not up to anyone else 'how or if that matters'.




Never said otherwise. But knowing that answer could affect her decision. If she'd still be held responsible for any support? If her identity would ever be revealed to the child? Would there be any circumstances where she'd have to interact with the father in the future (decisions, $$, etc)?



There's no way to access the unborn inside a woman without an invasive procedure. And even if we had transporters, the question would arise...since the unborn has no rights and is not a person...does anyone have the right to take it from her without her consent?

Let's back up a second. Where at any point in this whole discussion have I made any indication that anything would happen to the woman without her consent?

 

[Luce]

If you don't have bodily autonomy, you are by definition not free. You are chattel.