When do females lose their right to bodily autonomy?

[Bodi]

That was a really stupid post and you have dishonored yourself.

But honestly... that happened a long time before this.

 

[mrjurrs]

I was obviously pointing out your inability to correctly write the question.

Pregnancy begins at conception. The offspring is/are conceived, not the woman, at that time.

If a woman loses her bodily autonomy when the baby is born, she never lost it.

Here's the question.
"When do females lose their right to bodily autonomy?"

Conception- the moment the female becomes a female.
Become pregnant- the moment a female conceives

Your criticism is based on your lack of understanding. If you don't understand something, try asking...

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Here's the question.
"When do females lose their right to bodily autonomy?"

Conception- the moment the female becomes a female.
Become pregnant- the moment a female conceives

Neither. A female loses bodily autonomy at the same moment a male does: when she dies.

 

[mrjurrs]

Neither. A female loses bodily autonomy at the same moment a male does: when she dies.

Really?

You can't terminate your pregnancy female!

What is the equivalent loss for males?

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Really?

You can't terminate your pregnancy female!

What is the equivalent loss for males?

A female becomes a female at conception.

A female loses bodily autonomy when she dies.

It is not that hard to understand.

 

[Lursa]

A female becomes a female at conception.

A female loses bodily autonomy when she dies.

It is not that hard to understand.

Um...no. Something like the 4th Amendment right to 'security of the person' (bodily autonomy) only includes abrogation by the govt. So unless the govt kills someone without due process, your post is not true.

Const rights are what the federal govt are obligated to protect for people...and may not violate without due process.

 

[mrjurrs]

A female becomes a female at conception.

A female loses bodily autonomy when she dies.

It is not that hard to understand.

Try this again.
A female is unable to terminate a pregnancy because of a law. (loss of bodily autonomy)
What is a like loss of bodily auto0nomy for males?

It's not that hard to understand.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Try this again.
A female is unable to terminate a pregnancy because of a law. (loss of bodily autonomy)
What is a like loss of bodily auto0nomy for males?

It's not that hard to understand.

No law makes her unable to terminate a pregnancy.

 

[mrjurrs]

No law makes her unable to terminate a pregnancy.

Not legally. Going to jail for doing something is hardly an indication of autonomy.

 

[choiceone]

"Become pregnant" is exactly the same as conception. This fact is extremely obvious and repeatedly proven. The only possible time a pregnant girl or woman can lose her bodily autonomy is after her pregnancy has been diagnosed by a health professional.

In medicine, this is untrue. "Conception" refers to fertilization of an ovum by a sperm and the formation of a zygote. "Pregnancy" refers to the implantation of a blastocyst into the woman's tissue, hopefully in the endometrial wall of the uterus, but including the tissue of a Fallopian tube in an ectopic pregnancy.

A woman loses her bodily autonomy in pregnancy when physiological changes in her body cause her to experience abnormal difficulties such as nausea, morning sickness, coarsening of body form, change in eyeball shape and foot size, swelling of lower limbs, excessive hunger, hair falling out, teeth loosening, incontinence, and many other problems she certainly did not want. Get anemia and fall down unconscious on the sidewalk because of pregnancy? Loss of bodily autonomy.

If, however, she consented to the pregnancy, those things are not properly considered a loss of bodily autonomy. They are such a loss if she never consented to the pregnancy.

 

[bluesmoke]

“Who pays for the healthcare of a born human being and what happens if no one pays?”

Is not, even on the most tangential of tangents, related to, “if abortion is illegal, when does a woman lose the ‘right to bodily autonomy?’”

He barged in here and started spamming this question repeatedly, appropriate of nothing.


100% yes, please abolish them immediately. If Congress won’t do it then the Supreme Court should have done it, flagrantly unconstitutional programs.

Congress had and has no granted authority whatsoever to create these entitlements.

If abolished, what would happen to the well-being of those who normally would receive the benefit of Medicare and Medicaid?

 

[choiceone]

The example you gave was indeed a horrific one, but the specific horror of a mentally damaged child that grows into someone who threatens others is one that can occur equally from pregnancies that are wanted. The value of a child is not determined by a hypothetical about what they might do, any more than the value of a woman is. No child, and no woman, is worthless.




It's about like being an anti slavery person pre 1861. You believe there is an entire class of people being horrifically abused in our country, and are almost powerless to stop it.

I can't agree with this because it presumes that there are no mentally damaged persons who have genetic defects or that genetic defects related to mental damage are equal for offspring of consensual pregnancies and rape pregnancies. The fact is that there is at least some evidence that some limited percentage of violent criminals do have genetic disorders, e.g., double Y chromosome associates with greater violence.

I'm not saying that this can't be overcome by special effort, only that some genetic defects do associate with violent crime, and it is quite possible that genetic disorders contributing to the rape behavior could be passed on to the offspring.

So, sorry that you will think I'm some kind of evil eugenicist, but I think there is some reason to hypothesize that the offspring of voluntary love are more likely to be loving and respectful of the freedom underlying the voluntary and the offspring of criminal and violent rape are more likely to be criminal, violent, and rapey.

 

[CaughtInThe]

When old, platonic men say so.

 

[choiceone]

Neither. A female loses bodily autonomy at the same moment a male does: when she dies.

I have a friend whose legs stopped working when she was in her fifties. Later, she was able to work them again, if imperfectly. She would certainly disagree with you.

If a person's arm is paralyzed, if a stroke victim tries to speak his or her mind but a string of numbers comes out, some portion of bodily autonomy has been lost.

When you have any involuntary illness or injury or even have a temporary involuntary cough, for example, you lose some degree of bodily autonomy. Not to admit that is ridiculous.

If a person commits suicide, however bad that choice may be, that person does not lose bodily autonomy, but has deliberately chosen to give up having his or her body altogether.

 

[cpwill]

I can't agree with this because it presumes that there are no mentally damaged persons who have genetic defects or that genetic defects related to mental damage are equal for offspring of consensual pregnancies and rape pregnancies.

Then be at ease! It presumes no such thing (though I might separately point out what I think are some particularly troublesome implications of your argument) and you are free to agree

 

[Lursa]

I can't agree with this because it presumes that there are no mentally damaged persons who have genetic defects or that genetic defects related to mental damage are equal for offspring of consensual pregnancies and rape pregnancies. The fact is that there is at least some evidence that some limited percentage of violent criminals do have genetic disorders, e.g., double Y chromosome associates with greater violence.

I'm not saying that this can't be overcome by special effort, only that some genetic defects do associate with violent crime, and it is quite possible that genetic disorders contributing to the rape behavior could be passed on to the offspring.

So, sorry that you will think I'm some kind of evil eugenicist, but I think there is some reason to hypothesize that the offspring of voluntary love are more likely to be loving and respectful of the freedom underlying the voluntary and the offspring of criminal and violent rape are more likely to be criminal, violent, and rapey.

Not sure why the genetically defective, esp. mentally defective, unborn is presumed to be a danger to society in some arguments? It is clearly a detriment to the family *if according to their beliefs and circumstances* they believe it will be detrimental to them...why should a woman risk her life and health for something they do not want and are not prepared to care for? Or if caring for it will reduce or harm their ability to care for other dependents, hold jobs, maintain their other obligations and contributions in society? Some pro-lifers give 'worth' to the unborn that supersedes all other people and considerations.

The alternative is cruel, inhumane...have the kid and then dump it into the social services/institutional system.

Again, many disregard quality of life just to demand 'another' life be born, no matter what its existence would be. And only the mother/parents are in any position to know or decide that.

 

[Cassandra]

So no ones body is actually their own.

Every singular human is but some combination of bits and pieces of two other humans.

More than that. No surprise that men have always tried to control women's reproduction.

A woman carries within her body the entire family tree including the cells of every fetus she has ever carried.

In that respect, even an aborted fetus lives on.

 

[LouC]

More than that. No surprise that men have always tried to control women's reproduction.

A woman carries within her body the entire family tree including the cells of every fetus she has ever carried.

In that respect, even an aborted fetus lives on.

I long believed the reason so many R-Winger old white guys were against the "rape" exceptions in abortion laws was it allows women one tiny iota of power and that they knew rape would likely one day be the only means at their disposal for procreation.

 

[Cassandra]

In reality, the answer is "at the same point that makes do : when they want to use their bodily autonomy to harm someone else"

Would you apply that concept to humans collectively choosing to harm others?

 

[cpwill]

Would you apply that concept to humans collectively choosing to harm others?

Generally, yes.

 

[Cassandra]

Generally, yes.

So, are you a quaker?

 

[cpwill]

Not sure why the genetically defective, esp. mentally defective, unborn is presumed to be a danger to society in some arguments? It is clearly a detriment to the family *if according to their beliefs and circumstances* they believe it will be detrimental to them...why should a woman risk her life and health for something they do not want and are not prepared to care for? Or if caring for it will reduce or harm their ability to care for other dependents, hold jobs, maintain their other obligations and contributions in society? Some pro-lifers give 'worth' to the unborn that supersedes all other people and considerations.

The alternative is cruel, inhumane...have the kid and then dump it into the social services/institutional system.

Again, many disregard quality of life just to demand 'another' life be born, no matter what its existence would be. And only the mother/parents are in any position to know or decide that.

As I understand it, @choiceone's argument isn't "cull the mentally defective", it's "cull those who may have a greater chance of being mentally defective".

 

[Cassandra]

Generally, yes.

Because I assumed by your avatar that you were probably in the military. By my estimation, the U.S. has collectively harmed many, many, many humans arguably without a self defense excuse most of the time.

The problem with the pro-life movement is that it has always aspired to use punishment instead of honey to achieve its goals. Furthermore, there is an absence of focus on the behavior of men! So it leads me to doubt their stated motivations- which seems to lean in to control- of women..

 

[cpwill]

So, are you a quaker?

Nope. Not a pacifist, either, if that's where you are going with it. There are times where others' decisions make violence against them justifiable.

 

[Lursa]

As I understand it, @choiceone's argument isn't "cull the mentally defective", it's "cull those who may have a greater chance of being mentally defective".

In the context of what I wrote, I'm not understanding your distinction. I see their choices the same based on what I wrote.

Do you have an additional point?