Women are not ‘community property,’ a Georgia judge rules

[Gordy327]

Or to prevent her from selling one of her kidneys.

It's her body, correct? Perhaps a "pro-choice" advocate could explain why it's morally wrong for the state to prohibit her from having an abortion, but perfectly fine for the same state to prohibit her from selling one of her kidneys. You can't have it both ways.

Because selling organs is a medical process. It'd not like you can have an organ removed and give or sell it to someone else willy nilly. There are many factors which need to be taken into account. One may still donate their organs if they wish. But they also need to meet criteria for donation.

 

[Gordy327]

Why? They are both a matter of bodily autonomy. Her body, her choice, remember?

Yes. Just as donating organs is a choice too.

 

[aociswundumho]

Because selling organs is a medical process.

Last time I checked, abortion was a medical procedure as well.

One may still donate their organs if they wish.

Not just donate. She may sell her organs.

But they also need to meet criteria for donation.

No, it's her body, her choice.

 

[Gordy327]

Last time I checked, abortion was a medical procedure as well.

Yes, as is the disposal or donation of fetal tissue.

Not just donate. She may sell her organs.

Given the process of procuring, storing, transporting, and transplanting the organ, how would sale work exactly? I suppose if one wants to "sell" their organ/s to a specific "buyer," a payment contract can be established on the side. But medical procurement is still by donation only.

No, it's her body, her choice.

Yes, and she is free to donate. Medical criteria still needs to be met.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Or to prevent her from selling one of her kidneys.

It's her body, correct? Perhaps a "pro-choice" advocate could explain why it's morally wrong for the state to prohibit her from having an abortion, but perfectly fine for the same state to prohibit her from selling one of her kidneys. You can't have it both ways.

I am pretty sure a kidney cannot survive outside the body either.

 

[soylentgreen]

Or to prevent her from selling one of her kidneys.

It's her body, correct? Perhaps a "pro-choice" advocate could explain why it's morally wrong for the state to prohibit her from having an abortion, but perfectly fine for the same state to prohibit her from selling one of her kidneys. You can't have it both ways.

That is easy enough. Because your corrupt capitalist bullshit ends up with getting us things like this.

https://www.bbc.com/news/65960515

When a man who'd been sleeping rough walked into a police station near Heathrow Airport, it would lead to the UK's first prosecution of human trafficking for organ removal. The BBC has been given unprecedented access to the Metropolitan Police team that investigated this historic case.

 

[aociswundumho]

That is easy enough. Because your corrupt capitalist bullshit ends up with getting us things like this.

https://www.bbc.com/news/65960515

That's as dumb as saying rape is an argument against consensual sex.

 

[Irredentist]

Or to prevent her from selling one of her kidneys.

It's her body, correct? Perhaps a "pro-choice" advocate could explain why it's morally wrong for the state to prohibit her from having an abortion, but perfectly fine for the same state to prohibit her from selling one of her kidneys. You can't have it both ways.

I don't think we should be incentivizing the poor and desperate to sell their organs. That sounds like a one way ticket to a dystopian nightmare.

 

[Gordy327]

I am pretty sure a kidney cannot survive outside the body either.

Internal organs are funny like that. That's 1 of the things that makes donation challenging. There's a small window of opportunity to transplant the organ. Even then, there's no guarantee it will take hold snd function.

 

[soylentgreen]

That's as dumb as saying rape is an argument against consensual sex.

No it is the same as saying that when corrupt and criminal activity occurs because some idiot of a capitalist politician puts money before peoples safety then it is time regulations and laws were put into place to stop such activity.
When criminals find a way to profit from an abortion then talk about restrictions.
Your feeble attempt to conflate the two does not work.

 

[Bodecea]

What difference does that make? The doctor performing the abortion gets paid, does he not?

Suppose a rich man gets his mistress pregnant. Not only does he offer to pay for the abortion, but he offers her a cash sum for her trouble.

Should that be illegal?

You mean like what a certain rapey felon did at least seven times?

 

[maquiscat]

Or to prevent her from selling one of her kidneys.

It's her body, correct? Perhaps a "pro-choice" advocate could explain why it's morally wrong for the state to prohibit her from having an abortion, but perfectly fine for the same state to prohibit her from selling one of her kidneys. You can't have it both ways.

It's her body, and as such she can choose to give up a kidney, as part of her right of bodily autonomy. However, whether she can sell it or not is an issue of commerce not bodily autonomy. There are only two reasons to conflate the two issues; ignorance and dishonesty. I will grant you the benefit of the doubt in guessing your argument comes from the former.

 

[maquiscat]

What difference does that make? The doctor performing the abortion gets paid, does he not?

So does the doctor removing the kidney for donation. What's your point?

Suppose a rich man gets his mistress pregnant. Not only does he offer to pay for the abortion, but he offers her a cash sum for her trouble.

Should that be illegal?

That is probably going to come down to the wording on what the money is claimed to be for.

 

[weaver2]

The judge lays out a powerful argument that opposition to abortion is not moral or medical, but a political position that exists primarily to oppress women by forcing them to serve as human incubators.

"A former federal prosecutor and Harvard Law School graduate appointed to the bench by a Republican governor, McBurney didn’t mince words as he found the Georgia law violated the state constitution. He called out the “awkwardly arbitrary” limit set by the Georgia abortion law, which prohibits abortion once there is a “detectable human heartbeat.” As McBurney observed, at this stage “the ‘heart’ is a tiny cluster of cells that periodically pulse, pushing blood through the quarter-inch embryo that still sports a vestigial tail.” And why draw the line there? Georgia “was unable to articulate why a four- or five-week-old unborn child’s life was not worth enough to protect,” McBurney noted. “A five-week-old pregnancy is no more viable that a nine-week-old, but women are free to end such pregnancies (if they can detect them).

”McBurney was blunt: Georgia, he wrote, “has seized upon a point in gestation that has political salience, rather than medical or moral salience.” Blunter still, and more important, he was unsparing in his language about what it means, legally and practically, to force women to continue pregnancies against their will.

As a legal matter, “Women are not some piece of collectively owned community property the disposition of which is decided by majority vote,” McBurney wrote. “Forcing a woman to carry an unwanted, not-yet-viable fetus to term violates her constitutional rights to liberty and privacy, even taking into consideration whatever bundle of rights the not-yet-viable fetus may have.”

As a practical matter, McBurney was even clearer about the implications of requiring women to “serve as human incubators for the five months leading up to viability.”

“It is not for a legislator, a judge, or a Commander from The Handmaid’s Tale to tell these women what to do with their bodies during this period when the fetus cannot survive outside the womb any more so than society could — or should — force them to serve as a human tissue bank or to give up a kidney for the benefit of another,” McBurney wrote. “... When someone other than the pregnant woman is able to sustain the fetus, then — and only then — should those other voices have a say in the discussion about the decisions the pregnant woman makes concerning her body and what is growing within it.”"

Link

Note to Christian conservatives, Christian nationalists, Christian anti-abortion advocates and Christian protesters, Christian clinic prayers, Christian legislators and Christian busybodies

“Women are not some piece of collectively owned community property the disposition of which is decided by majority vote.”
Judge Robert C. I. McBurney

 

[Lursa]

Or to prevent her from selling one of her kidneys.

It's her body, correct? Perhaps a "pro-choice" advocate could explain why it's morally wrong for the state to prohibit her from having an abortion, but perfectly fine for the same state to prohibit her from selling one of her kidneys. You can't have it both ways.

I'm fine with it with the same constraints as for assisted suicide...counseling and oversight to limit coercion and abuse.

 

[Lursa]

Interesting. While I agree, given Dobbs, what was the Constitutional basis for this?

How about the 13th Amendment? How often do we see that "the state may take a compelling interest in the unborn?"

So if the state denies a woman a much safer medical procedure in order to fulfill the state's interest and compels her to give birth without her consent...that sounds like involuntary servitude to me. What are your thoughts?

13th A:​

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.​

Sex and pregnancy are perfectly legal and abortion is much much safer than pregnancy/childbirth.

 

[Lursa]

You are adding a financial interaction with your argument.
Maybe you consider comparing this view on abortion to one about giving a kidney.

Also a good point.

 

[LouC]

Women are not ‘community property,’ a Georgia judge rules​

I sure as hell want to see that ruling appealed all the way to the MAGAT Stacked Supreme Court!

 

[aociswundumho]

That is probably going to come down to the wording on what the money is claimed to be for.

Why? It's her body, therefore it should be her choice. Doesn't matter what the wording is.

 

[Lursa]

That won't hold. SCOTUS overturned the right to privacy with Dobbs, alas.

Not the entire right to privacy, just the one, it has a name I'd have to look up, that was covered by the 10 precedents that supported the RvW decision, all on marriage, family, school choice, birth control, etc. Something like "the sphere of family something is not the business of the state."

We still have a right to privacy, the police still need probable cause for searches. The state may not compel a person to provide blood or urine for evidence, we still have very strong HIPAA federal law, etc.

 

[aociswundumho]

It's her body, and as such she can choose to give up a kidney, as part of her right of bodily autonomy. However, whether she can sell it or not is an issue of commerce not bodily autonomy.

You're making the same argument conservative Republicans make against prostitution - she has the right have sex, unless she does so for money.

Do you agree with that?

There are only two reasons to conflate the two issues; ignorance and dishonesty. I will grant you the benefit of the doubt in guessing your argument comes from the former.

 

[Lursa]

Why? It's her body, therefore it should be her choice. Doesn't matter what the wording is.

Yes, IMO like prostitution, which I also believe should be legal but regulated for both sides' protection. You are probably against the 'regulated" part. They would be for health and safety purposes.

 

[zincwarrior]

Not the entire right to privacy, just the one, it has a name I'd have to look up, that was covered by the 10 precedents that supported the RvW decision, all on marriage, family, school choice, birth control, etc. Something like "the sphere of family something is not the business of the state."

Yes, I think we're agreeing.

We still have a right to privacy, the police still need probable cause for searches. The state may not compel a person to provide blood or urine for evidence, we still have very strong HIPAA federal law, etc.

Sure it can. They just need a warrant. given warrants are now automatic for blood draws at DUI checkpoint refusals, its worthless now.

 

[Lursa]

I think its illegal due to the purchasing side, but its a weird comparison.

We have legal surrogacy now. Couples pay a woman to bear a kid for them. Is that wrong?

 

[aociswundumho]

I don't think we should be incentivizing the poor and desperate to sell their organs.

Allowing something is not incentivizing it. Cigarettes are legal, but that's not an incentive to smoke.

Just say you don't support the right to bodily autonomy, and that what you can do with your own body should be up to greasy politicians.