What is the woman's real right?

[maquiscat]

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

Who is that directed to?

 

[Lursa]

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?

You asked what right abortion should be/is based on. I said "bodily autonomy."

Then to put it in context with your scenario, I explained it.

 

[maquiscat]

You asked what right abortion should be/is based on. I said "bodily autonomy."

Then to put it in context with your scenario, I explained it.

That still doesn't show where anything I put out would be done to her without her consent.

 

[Lursa]

That still doesn't show where anything I put out would be done to her without her consent.

You asked what right? I answered you.

What else do you want? I never said it would be done to her. I pointed out why it wouldnt, based on that right.

You have a right to bear arms, they cant take your guns without your consent.

You have a right to vote, they cant stop you from voting without your consent.

You have a right to protest peacefully, they cant remove you without your consent.

Unless you are breaking a law and receive due process, your rights cannot be violated without your consent. Has nothing to do with whether or not you have that right.

And yes, the above is an over-simplification but I have no idea why you havent understood what I posted. It's pretty simple.

 

[Luce]

Who is that directed to?

It is directed to the question in the OP. There are no qualifiers for this. Either women have bodily autonomy or they do not. There is no middle ground.

 

[maquiscat]

It is directed to the question in the OP. There are no qualifiers for this. Either women have bodily autonomy or they do not. There is no middle ground.

Ok. What about the OP denies any bodily autonomy to the woman?

 

[Luce]

Ok. What about the OP denies any bodily autonomy to the woman?

The first option leads me to believe you have an agenda. Nobody on this Earth argues that a woman should be able to terminate a child after it is born.

 

[maquiscat]

You asked what right? I answered you.

What else do you want? I never said it would be done to her. I pointed out why it wouldnt, based on that right.

You have a right to bear arms, they cant take your guns without your consent.

You have a right to vote, they cant stop you from voting without your consent.

You have a right to protest peacefully, they cant remove you without your consent.

Unless you are breaking a law and receive due process, your rights cannot be violated without your consent. Has nothing to do with whether or not you have that right.

And yes, the above is an over-simplification but I have no idea why you havent understood what I posted. It's pretty simple.

But I still don't see where the right of bodily autonomy grants a right to terminate the ZEF in and of itself, as opposed to the right grants the ending of the pregnancy and the termination of the ZEF is a result of there only being currently the one procedure.

 

[Luce]

But I still don't see where the right of bodily autonomy grants a right to terminate the ZEF in and of itself, as opposed to the right grants the ending of the pregnancy and the termination of the ZEF is a result of there only being currently the one procedure.

I don't see where you get to keep both kidneys if someone needs one of them to stay alive.

 

[maquiscat]

The first option leads me to believe you have an agenda. Nobody on this Earth argues that a woman should be able to terminate a child after it is born.

The OP does not suggest that. You are reading more into it, if that is your take away.

The woman has the right to have the pregnancy ended. There is not any claim to the contrary here. The question is whether that automatically means termination of the ZEF or, assuming a procedure exists that can remove the ZEF with equal or less physical trauma than an abortion (and with no claim that such exists...yet), that abortion can be banned without violating her right to end the pregnancy.

 

[Luce]

The OP does not suggest that. You are reading more into it, if that is your take away.

The woman has the right to have the pregnancy ended. There is not any claim to the contrary here. The question is whether that automatically means termination of the ZEF or, assuming a procedure exists that can remove the ZEF with equal or less physical trauma than an abortion (and with no claim that such exists...yet), that abortion can be banned without violating her right to end the pregnancy.

Except now you're forcing a medical procedure.

 

[Lursa]

But I still don't see where the right of bodily autonomy grants a right to terminate the ZEF in and of itself, as opposed to the right grants the ending of the pregnancy and the termination of the ZEF is a result of there only being currently the one procedure.

The unborn has no rights. The govt is obligated to protect the Const rights of the woman...and bodily autonomy is "security of the person" under the 4th Amendment.

There is a safer medical procedure than pregnancy/childbirth...abortion.

On what grounds would justify the US govt forcing her to remain in a much riskier state of health by denying her the safer procedure?

So I just answered your question. Please answer mine, just above and this one: why wouldnt the woman have the right to terminate the unborn?

Abortion is 14 times safer than pregnancy​

​

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Getting a legal abortion is much safer than giving birth, suggests a new U.S. study published Monday.​

​

Researchers found that women were about 14 times more likely to die during or after giving birth to a live baby than to die from complications of an abortion.​

​

Abortion safer than giving birth: study

Getting a legal abortion is much safer than giving birth, suggests a new U.S. study published Monday.

www.reuters.com

 

[weaver2]

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

You are asking people, that are faced with the distinct possibility that they will be denied the right manage an unwanted pregnancy that will seriously effect their families, to worry about a technique that has very little possibility of coming into existence in the next 25 years. And you wonder why we are not all excited about it.

 

[Luce]

You are asking people, that are faced with the distinct possibility that they will be denied the right manage an unwanted pregnancy that will seriously effect their families, to worry about a technique that has very little possibility of coming into existence in the next 25 years. And you wonder why we are not all excited about it.

This all reminds me of John Becker in Ohio demanding that ectopic pregnancies "get reimplanted," despite there being no viable medical procedures to do so.

 

[maquiscat]

Except now you're forcing a medical procedure.

How? There are several procedures that are no longer available today, with other procedures that have replaced them. So am I being forced a medical procedure in having to go with what replaced that which is no longer used?

Five bloodcurdling medical procedures that are no longer performed ... thankfully

If the thought of undergoing surgery fills you with dread, spare a thought for your forebears.

theconversation.com

 

[Luce]

How? There are several procedures that are no longer available today, with other procedures that have replaced them. So am I being forced a medical procedure in having to go with what replaced that which is no longer used?

Five bloodcurdling medical procedures that are no longer performed ... thankfully

If the thought of undergoing surgery fills you with dread, spare a thought for your forebears.

theconversation.com

So the idea here is that the fetus is magically teleported from the woman into another woman?

 

[Patriotic Voter]

This all reminds me of John Becker in Ohio demanding that ectopic pregnancies "get reimplanted," despite there being no viable medical procedures to do so.

Mike DeWine signed that stupid law. Of course a nationwide gynecologists and obstetricians group protested by saying embryo reimplantation is medically impossible.

 

[Luce]

Mike DeWine signed that stupid law. Of course a nationwide gynecologists and obstetricians group protested by saying embryo reimplantation is medically impossible.

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.

 

[maquiscat]

The unborn has no rights.

Never claimed otherwise. Nothing about what I wrote says that they do.

The govt is obligated to protect the Const rights of the woman...and bodily autonomy is "security of the person" under the 4th Amendment.

Nothing about what I wrote denies the woman her security of person. She still gets to be no longer pregnant if she wishes.

There is a safer medical procedure than pregnancy/childbirth...abortion.

And under the hypothetical for the exploration of the rights, so is the procedure that would result in her no longer being pregnant and the offspring still being alive. I specifically said equally or less physically traumatic as abortion.

On what grounds would justify the US govt forcing her to remain in a much riskier state of health by denying her the safer procedure?

Since I did not in any way put forth that she should remain in the state of pregnancy, this is a strawman question.

So I just answered your question.

No you haven't since you keep changing the conditions that are the foundation of my question.

Please answer mine, just above and this one: why wouldnt the woman have the right to terminate the unborn?

Because, under the conditions I gave, it's not necessary for her to end her pregnancy. She can exercise her bodily autonomy and end the use of her bodily resources without terminating the offspring.

So turn the question around. Given the conditions presented (please don't change them again) why would the woman have the right to terminate the offspring?

 

[Patriotic Voter]

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.

Evangelicals are not fruitcakes. I have no idea where you got that idea from.

Even Mike Pence would never support that bill. He likes saving the woman's life.

 

[Luce]

Scratch a libertarian, find a misogynist.

 

[Luce]

Evangelicals are not fruitcakes. I have no idea where you got that idea from.

I got that from half a century of American evangelical fruitcakes. I can provide examples.

Even Mike Pence would never support that bill. He likes saving the woman's life.

Yes, but Mike Pence isn't actually crazy.

 

[maquiscat]

You are asking people, that are faced with the distinct possibility that they will be denied the right manage an unwanted pregnancy that will seriously effect their families, to worry about a technique that has very little possibility of coming into existence in the next 25 years. And you wonder why we are not all excited about it.

Given the conditions presented, how are they denied the right to manage an unwanted pregnancy? Do they not become no longer pregnant as they wish to be? Again, the exploration of a right is not dependent upon whether any given procedure exists, or whether anyone actually excercises the right. As @Lursa noted, the right to an abortion would still exist even if not a single woman in the world ever got one.

 

[Luce]

Given the conditions presented, how are they denied the right to manage an unwanted pregnancy? Do they not become no longer pregnant as they wish to be? Again, the exploration of a right is not dependent upon whether any given procedure exists, or whether anyone actually excercises the right. As @Lursa noted, the right to an abortion would still exist even if not a single woman in the world ever got one.

That is honestly the stupidest thing I've seen today, and I've been reading the Trucker threads by means of contrast.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

I got that from half a century of American evangelical fruitcakes. I can provide examples.

There is no such thing as an evangelical fruitcake.