What is the woman's real right?

[maquiscat]

Umm, how are you going to get the fertilized egg, embryo or fetus out of the uterus without some kind of operation in which most of the processes of the operation are identical to an abortion?

And if Roe is overturned and abortion is banned, how will this almost-identical-to-an-abortion operation be legal? What kind of punishment can you expect if the almost-identical-to-an-abortion operation is performed in Texas where they seem extremely intolerant of abortion providers. We can go on and on with the hypotheticals.

For all I know we develop Star Trek transporters. I don't know that it will or will not be near identical. I am only exploring what is an actual right and what is simply the result of an exercised right, and how people might conflate the two.

 

[maquiscat]

9th Amendment, also referred to in RvW. Yes, she had a right before. And it was legal in some states.

You asked me to go back to the 9th. Sure let's go back to it.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

So by that, it shall not be construed to deny or disparage the right of the father to the offspring if the mother wishes it no longer in her body.

So there you go. Using the 9th, we can now say that as long as the woman's right to end her pregnancy is not violated and such a procedure exist, a man has the right to the offspring that she doesn't want.

 

[maquiscat]

You are doing the exact same thing.

I am actually doing to opposite. I am making the claim that certain rights specifically exist despite the law and ruling saying otherwise. To which authority am supposed to be appealing to, as far as my arguments go?

I said we can do without discussing consent if you clarified this:

--she may choose abortion
--she may choose to give birth
--she may choose your hypothetical procedure.

If that is the case, then we dont have to discuss 'consent.' Then we'll discuss other things like 'availability' or other.

You were the one who kept making remarks about how she has to give consent for this and that as if I had claimed that things can be done without her consent. I made it perfectly clear every times that nothing I have put out causes her to have anything done without her consent. At least no more so than it equally applies to a man. Equal rights and all.

I cant answer this any differently. My guess is lithotomy was 'banned' because a safer procedure became available. Or...please give me the reason?

Yeah that was my guess as well

If you are going to attempt to use this as an example, then it doesnt work because abortion is safer than pregnancy and since also less invasive than your hypothetical procedure, also safer than that. Or are you going to move the goal posts again? If they are both 'safe,' then why would abortion be banned?

That's the thing. I specifically mentioned, from the start, that any hypothetical procedure would have to be as safe or safer, and cause as much or less physical trauma than an abortion.

 

[maquiscat]

Why would elective abortion be banned?

I'm not even claiming that it would or should be. In exploring the principle of the rights, I am making the point that it could be and such would not be a violation of the woman's bodily autonomy, but only under the idea of a procedure that is of not equal to an abortion in invasiveness and physical trauma, then less invasive and with less trauma. I am working under the precept that there were things that no one could imagine how we would do before, we have now managed to figure out how to do. So there is no reason to assume that this will never be figured out.

 

[Lursa]

You asked me to go back to the 9th. Sure let's go back to it.



So by that, it shall not be construed to deny or disparage the right of the father to the offspring if the mother wishes it no longer in her body.

So there you go. Using the 9th, we can now say that as long as the woman's right to end her pregnancy is not violated and such a procedure exist, a man has the right to the offspring that she doesn't want.

Why does she have a right to end a pregnancy and not a right to rid herself of the unborn in her body? What's the difference there?

 

[maquiscat]

If you want to pretend there's no law or recognition of a right here, it would be that indeed, the woman has the right to remove ANYTHING in her body. And have been doing so for all time, using herbs and other things.

You seem to assume she doesnt have that right, to remove anything in her body. Is that true? If so, why?

That is false. I've said it from the beginning. She has every right to end that pregnancy. That means the offspring is removed from her body. I am only claiming that that removal does not in and of itself constitute a right to terminate the offspring. That the only reason the offspring is terminated is the simple fact that there currently is no other way to remove it. My hypothetical now provides a way to remove the offspring without terminating it, but that still means that it is removed. Where have I put forth anything that she has no right to remove anything from her body?

No if you want to use the word 'right,' then I posted where her right to kill the unborn is recognized and codified by law. The word 'kill' is used in the legal decision.

You cant have it both ways...you cant say she doesnt have a right when it is indeed recognized by the country's legal authority and then assert that she does NOT have that right just because you say so. You have to explain why she doesnt have that right.

You can't have it both ways either. You can't claim that she always had the right when the lawmakers and courts prior to RvW said she didn't. At one point the country's legal authority recognized the right to own slaves, then it said that right doesn't exist. And that is not the only example of where a right was claimed and upheld only to be then removed later. So then it is no leap to say that a right to terminate the offspring is not actually a right, while still recognizing the right to remove anything from one's body that they want to.

 

[Lursa]

I am actually doing to opposite. I am making the claim that certain rights specifically exist despite the law and ruling saying otherwise. To which authority am supposed to be appealing to, as far as my arguments go?

No rights exist unless recocgnized by an authority. In the US, that authority is the Const and the courts that interpret it when necessary. The laws protect those rights.

You were the one who kept making remarks about how she has to give consent for this and that as if I had claimed that things can be done without her consent. I made it perfectly clear every times that nothing I have put out causes her to have anything done without her consent. At least no more so than it equally applies to a man. Equal rights and all.

And I said not to worry about the consenting. Why are you repeating this a third time? All I asked is that you confirm something so that we can move on without it. So again, just confirm this part of your OP premise or scenario and we can move on, not worrying about consent:

--she may choose abortion
--she may choose to give birth
--she may choose your hypothetical procedure.

Yeah that was my guess as well

That's the thing. I specifically mentioned, from the start, that any hypothetical procedure would have to be as safe or safer, and cause as much or less physical trauma than an abortion.

Sorry, you are going into ridiculous sci-fi territory, yes, like Star Trek like you said. Everything you wrote is just to narrowly focus on something so that it can ONLY reach one conclusion. Unless it IS a transporter, it's invasive with a risk. Who gets to decide what risks a woman will submit to? That also would be a right...wouldnt it? Who has the right to demand what risks a woman must take? What's to stop that person or authority from demanding she give birth then? It's "Just another risk."

 

[maquiscat]

Thanks. I figured. I asked him once if a patient had the right to demand leeches for a terrible headache instead of another treatment the doctor prescribed. I dont believe I got an answer.

That may have been one of that group that got passed over when the responses got too far along. But I do believe that I essentially answered that when I asked if asking for and not receiving a given procedure, such as an abortion, was a violation of one's bodily autonomy. If it is, then not getting the leeches or the lithotomy is also a violation of bodily autonomy. If those are not violations of bodily autonomy, then neither is not getting an asked for abortion if other procedures are available to remove the offspring. Like you said, you can't have it both ways.

 

[maquiscat]

Why does she have a right to end a pregnancy and not a right to rid herself of the unborn in her body? What's the difference there?

How do you mean rid herself of the unborn? If you mean get the unborn out of her body, then ending the pregnancy gets the unborn out of her body. What is so hard about that to understand? If by rid herself of the unborn, you mean killing it above and beyond it being removed from her body, then why doesn't the man have the same right? The man has the same right under which abortion applies to the woman, that is to have removed from their own bodies anything that is in them. Equal rights. And right now that cannot happen without killing the unborn. But if it can be done without killing the unborn, then why should not his right be recognized now that they can be?

 

[Lursa]

That is false. I've said it from the beginning. She has every right to end that pregnancy.

Why should she have the right to 'end the pregnancy' but not kill the unborn in doing so?

That means the offspring is removed from her body. I am only claiming that that removal does not in and of itself constitute a right to terminate the offspring.

I posted otherwise, a valid legal decision, those exact words supported by the Const. What is your personal 'right' based on? You dont want an 'appeal to authority?' Where does your 'right' not to kill it (is that what you are claiming?) come from, based on what?

That the only reason the offspring is terminated is the simple fact that there currently is no other way to remove it.

that's not true. There are other reasons. But we havent gotten there yet. And I'm not going into them until this is clarified.

One reason would be that the mother felt strongly about overpopulation and the environment.

My hypothetical now provides a way to remove the offspring without terminating it, but that still means that it is removed. Where have I put forth anything that she has no right to remove anything from her body?

Fine.

You can't have it both ways either. You can't claim that she always had the right when the lawmakers and courts prior to RvW said she didn't.

They didnt say that, that's dishonest, the text was provided for you. They said that women always had it, confirmed by the 14th and the 4th.

Some states tried to say otherwise.

At one point the country's legal authority recognized the right to own slaves, then it said that right doesn't exist

Slaves were considered property, it was an individual's status and the courts, under the Const., recognized that "people" kept as property violated their rights. Free blacks werent considered property. People can still own slaves as long as they arent humans. The right to own slaves still exists...if there were robots, they could be slaves.

. And that is not the only example of where a right was claimed and upheld only to be then removed later. So then it is no leap to say that a right to terminate the offspring is not actually a right, while still recognizing the right to remove anything from one's body that they want to.

It is a right and you havent provided any valid reasons why a woman cant kill the unborn.

 

[Lursa]

That may have been one of that group that got passed over when the responses got too far along. But I do believe that I essentially answered that when I asked if asking for and not receiving a given procedure, such as an abortion, was a violation of one's bodily autonomy. If it is, then not getting the leeches or the lithotomy is also a violation of bodily autonomy. If those are not violations of bodily autonomy, then neither is not getting an asked for abortion if other procedures are available to remove the offspring. Like you said, you can't have it both ways.

No, it's about individual rights and any Dr has the right to not perform any procedure on the person. No one's 'having it both ways.'

 

[Lursa]

How do you mean rid herself of the unborn? If you mean get the unborn out of her body, then ending the pregnancy gets the unborn out of her body. What is so hard about that to understand?

I meant kill and you know it. I've specified that many times. Why doesnt she have the right to kill it? What's so hard to understand about that question, when I've asked it that way before?

If by rid herself of the unborn, you mean killing it above and beyond it being removed from her body, then why doesn't the man have the same right?

Are you going to invent a hypothetical technology that enables men to kill the unborn without invading the woman's body and/or causing her any harm?

The man has the same right under which abortion applies to the woman, that is to have removed from their own bodies anything that is in them. Equal rights.

Of course, a man has the right to have removed from his body anything that he wants removed. That's equal.

Altho there are laws that actually dont allow that...you cant have your kidney removed and sell it. You cant have your arm amputated...there are mental illnesses like that and the procedures are prohibited. Just a couple of examples.

And right now that cannot happen without killing the unborn. But if it can be done without killing the unborn, then why should not his right be recognized now that they can be?

He has no right to anything inside her body...where is that "right" based? It's not his property, those things have been established in law that he willingly 'gave' her his sperm. I'm not googling it but you can.

If she swallowed his gold ring does he have the right to demand she have surgery to get it back? (And that's even if she stole it, not that he gave it to her. Or you could say it was his ring he gave her for sentimental reasons and she swallowed it when he asked for it back. Either way, and it wont be pooped out "medical reasons".)

I'm pretty sure he doesnt. The state cant even compel someone to give blood or have bullets surgically removed as evidence. The right to bodily autonomy protects them.

So then how does he have any rights to anything inside her body? To compel ANY actions on anything inside her body?

 

[maquiscat]

No rights exist unless recocgnized by an authority.

Now you are hypocritical.

9th Amendment, also referred to in RvW. Yes, she had a right before. And it was legal in some states.

How could she when it wasn't recognized by an authority before? Either the right to an abortion existed before it was recognized by an authority, or the right to an abortion did not exist until it was recognized by an authority. As you said, you can't have it both ways.

In the US, that authority is the Const and the courts that interpret it when necessary. The laws protect those rights.

The authority, as interpreted by the courts, did not recognize that right under the 9th or any other amendment between the 1860's and 1971. The very fact that some states allowed and others did not further confirms that it was not recognized as a US Constitutional right until 1971. Therefore by your own words, the right to an abortion did not exist until 1971. Except by your own words, it existed before RvW was decided.

And I said not to worry about the consenting. Why are you repeating this a third time? All I asked is that you confirm something so that we can move on without it. So again, just confirm this part of your OP premise or scenario and we can move on, not worrying about consent:

--she may choose abortion
--she may choose to give birth
--she may choose your hypothetical procedure.

The later two would remain true. The ability to choose an abortion might not be there as it would have been supplanted by the hypothetical in the same manner as a cystostomy has supplanted lithotomy.

Sorry, you are going into ridiculous sci-fi territory, yes, like Star Trek like you said. Everything you wrote is just to narrowly focus on something so that it can ONLY reach one conclusion. Unless it IS a transporter, it's invasive with a risk.

Yeah, like going to the moon and Mars wasn't ridiculous science fiction at one point. Or even submarines for that matter. Oh look! ST:TNG had pads long before they were ever invented. And ST:TOS had communicators that looked a lot like flip phones. Amazing how we manage to achieve these ridiculous sci-fi territory things long before the sci-fi-writers think we will. So this hypothetical procedure is not really all that ridiculous.

Who gets to decide what risks a woman will submit to? That also would be a right...wouldnt it? Who has the right to demand what risks a woman must take? What's to stop that person or authority from demanding she give birth then? It's "Just another risk."

Who gets to decide what risks anyone gets to take when it comes to the lithotomy vs the cystostomy? How is that any different? Keep in mind that from the start I said that the hypothetical would have to be as safe if not safer than an abortion. So if we can say a lithotomy is not allowed because a cystostomy is safer, then we can certainly say that abortion is not allowed if the hypothetical is safer.

 

[Lursa]

Why does she have a right to end a pregnancy and not a right to rid herself of the unborn in her body? What's the difference there?

@maquiscat I meant that "under the 9th" for both. Why assume one is valid while unenumerated and the other is not?

I wasnt clear there.

 

[Lursa]

Now you are hypocritical.

How so? I've never defined or considered rights in any other way. Do you? Rights are a man-made concept and unless recognized, dont exist. I guess they can be imagined in minds but are meaningless unless codified and protected/enforced by laws.

So what authority are you using, if not the Const?

How could she when it wasn't recognized by an authority before? Either the right to an abortion existed before it was recognized by an authority, or the right to an abortion did not exist until it was recognized by an authority. As you said, you can't have it both ways.

I just wrote this. It was recognized by some states, the courts clarified it, using the Const. Did the right NOT exist in those states? Why are you asking me to repeat this? It was protected under the Const, which SCOTUS deliberately examined, identified several rights protected under various amendments. That's their job.

The right to sodomy isnt enumerated anywhere in the Const. Did people have the right to commit that act before it also was clarified by the higher courts? Just because it wasnt formally named and recognized by 'an authority?'

The authority, as interpreted by the courts, did not recognize that right under the 9th or any other amendment between the 1860's and 1971. The very fact that some states allowed and others did not further confirms that it was not recognized as a US Constitutional right until 1971. Therefore by your own words, the right to an abortion did not exist until 1971. Except by your own words, it existed before RvW was decided.

Now you are just playing word games. The right existed in the Const and SCOTUS showed how and why. The Constitution and the amendments are the "determiner" here, not 'when.'

So if you're going to invent rights, they have to be supported in the Constitution...and not violate the rights of others when exercised (without due process).

The later two would remain true. The ability to choose an abortion might not be there as it would have been supplanted by the hypothetical in the same manner as a cystostomy has supplanted lithotomy.

Since it still produces a born offspring, it's not the same and may not be what the woman wants. Why cant the woman ensure that no additional life that she produced be added to the planet's population?

Yeah, like going to the moon and Mars wasn't ridiculous science fiction at one point. Or even submarines for that matter. Oh look! ST:TNG had pads long before they were ever invented. And ST:TOS had communicators that looked a lot like flip phones. Amazing how we manage to achieve these ridiculous sci-fi territory things long before the sci-fi-writers think we will. So this hypothetical procedure is not really all that ridiculous.

Sorry, it's still just you trying to avoid the conclusion you want to arrive at. On Star Trek, transporters malfunctioned. Please argue in good faith or not at all.

Who gets to decide what risks anyone gets to take when it comes to the lithotomy vs the cystostomy? How is that any different? Keep in mind that from the start I said that the hypothetical would have to be as safe if not safer than an abortion. So if we can say a lithotomy is not allowed because a cystostomy is safer, then we can certainly say that abortion is not allowed if the hypothetical is safer.

If there's any risk, even if the transporter malfunctions (it has It's killed people), why should someone else get to decide for the woman? You just avoided answering my direct questions by just asking more questions. Please do so:

Who gets to decide what risks a woman will submit to? That also would be a right...wouldnt it? Who has the right to demand what risks a woman must take? Then what's to stop that person or authority from demanding she give birth? It's "Just another risk."

 

[craig]

The right for you to get out of her business.

 

[minnie616]

How do you mean rid herself of the unborn? If you mean get the unborn out of her body, then ending the pregnancy gets the unborn out of her body. What is so hard about that to understand? If by rid herself of the unborn, you mean killing it above and beyond it being removed from her body, then why doesn't the man have the same right? The man has the same right under which abortion applies to the woman, that is to have removed from their own bodies anything that is in them. Equal rights. And right now that cannot happen without killing the unborn. But if it can be done without killing the unborn, then why should not his right be recognized now that they can be?

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.

 

[soylentgreen]

Thank you! This is exactly what I have been saying the whole time. The woman does not have a right to the termination of the offspring in and of itself. Her right is the ending of the pregnancy. If the only safe procedure ends up terminating the offspring so be it. But if an as safe or safer procedure exists, abortion can be banned without violating the woman's right to end the pregnancy.

That would only be the case if women were once again regulated to the level of a second class citizen with the rights of a fetus superseding hers. There is still the right of a woman to choose not to raise a child not just not be pregnant. You cannot force by law for a woman to be a parent.

 

[minnie616]

Thank you! This is exactly what I have been saying the whole time. The woman does not have a right to the termination of the offspring in and of itself. Her right is the ending of the pregnancy. If the only safe procedure ends up terminating the offspring so be it. But if an as safe or safer procedure exists, abortion can be banned without violating the woman's right to end the pregnancy.

That would only be the case if women were once again regulated to the level of a second class citizen with the rights of a fetus superseding hers. There is still the right of a woman to choose not to raise a child not just not be pregnant. You cannot force by law for a woman to be a parent.

I agree .
maquiscat is so caught up in his future transfer of an embryo he doesn’t even see that he is advocating to take away the right to an abortion.

The decisions to become a parent, when and under what circumstances are deeply personal. These matters are best left to a woman to discern for herself in consultation with her family, her faith and others she may bring into the conversation.

 

[minnie616]

That would only be the case if women were once again regulated to the level of a second class citizen with the rights of a fetus superseding hers. There is still the right of a woman to choose not to raise a child not just not be pregnant. You cannot force by law for a woman to be a parent.

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

With the U.S. Supreme Court becoming more conservative, manypeople who support women’s right to choose an abortion fear thatRoe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that gave them that right, is indang…

www.sandiegouniontribune.com

 

[maquiscat]

That would only be the case if women were once again regulated to the level of a second class citizen with the rights of a fetus superseding hers. There is still the right of a woman to choose not to raise a child not just not be pregnant. You cannot force by law for a woman to be a parent.

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

 

[LostinThought]

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

No, you can't force he man to be a parent. You squeeze all the money you want out of them poor sap, but not to force him into fatherhood.

 

[maquiscat]

I agree .
maquiscat is so caught up in his future transfer of an embryo he doesn’t even see that he is advocating to take away the right to an abortion.

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.

The decisions to become a parent, when and under what circumstances are deeply personal. These matters are best left to a woman to discern for herself in consultation with her family, her faith and others she may bring into the conversation.

Again, why is not a decision to become a parent, when and under what circumstances not deeply personal to a man? If both engaged in sex with consent and the effort to avoid pregnancy, then why does he not get a say in whether the offspring is terminated or not? Right now it's because we can't get it out of her body without terminating it. But as long as he is not forcing the use of her body, then he has just as much right to the offspring as she does. There are parental rights as well. Her bodily autonomy right do override them insofar as he can't force her to remain pregnant. But why can't he have the offspring if she doesn't want it? Remember producing a child doesn't mean giving birth, so he produces one just as much as she does. If a decision to produce a child should not be forced, then the rights to do so or not do so should be equal when you can do so. You can't do it currently, but you can under the hypothetical.

 

[maquiscat]

No, you can't force he man to be a parent. You squeeze all the money you want out of them poor sap, but not to force him into fatherhood.

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.

 

[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.


Again, why is not a decision to become a parent, when and under what circumstances not deeply personal to a man? If both engaged in sex with consent and the effort to avoid pregnancy, then why does he not get a say in whether the offspring is terminated or not? Right now it's because we can't get it out of her body without terminating it. But as long as he is not forcing the use of her body, then he has just as much right to the offspring as she does. There are parental rights as well. Her bodily autonomy right do override them insofar as he can't force her to remain pregnant. But why can't he have the offspring if she doesn't want it? Remember producing a child doesn't mean giving birth, so he produces one just as much as she does. If a decision to produce a child should not be forced, then the rights to do so or not do so should be equal when you can do so. You can't do it currently, but you can under the hypothetical.

Abortion is right.
You just choose to ignore my links including the United Nations link that says it is a right.
……..
i never said a man should not be included in the abortion decision.

Of course an abortion is big decision and in committed relationships he is almost always part of the decision and is aware before she has an abortion.

As I pointed out in other abortion threads the following study showed that 44 percent of the men in a committed relationship instigate the abortion discussion.

From Association for Interdisciplinary Research in Values and Social Change:

https://www.lifeissues.net/writers/air/air_vol6no4_1994.html



One study found that 44% of husbands instigated the abortion decision. 2 If the couple is dependent on the wife’s income to supplement the household budget, a new baby is often seen by the man primarily in terms of the negative impact it will have on the family’s finances. Or he may not be willing to see his wife’s attention diverted away from himself as she cares for the young child.