Roe V Wade has been repealed

[MicroNut99]

My heart aches for you. I appreciate you sharing that with us, and just know that before any of these yokels start flaming you, I know I, and possibly many others on this board, understand the hard choice you had to make to ensure survival, at worst. It's a terrible thing to have happened, but you'll get no harsh judgement from me, neither for your stance or your decision. You made the best decision you could at the time, and it led to what appears to be continued prosperity in at least one aspect of another. A commendable decision in my eyes, if that matters.

Thank you.
I've tried to explain what I think is the importance of pro-choice before in this thread.
But those were all words based on my life without any context.
Easy for any troll to eat.

 

[SyphenFreht]

Thank you.
I've tried to explain what I think is the importance of pro-choice before in this thread.
But those were all words based on my life without any context.
Easy for any troll to eat.

Trolls mean nothing as long as you uphold your values, and so far it seems you're doing a great job. Just know you have allies if you need, whereas trolls have nobody.

 

[AleronIves]

A woman has a right to bodily autonomy, but she does not have the right to kill a fetus. She does, however, have the right to remove the fetus from her body. There's a very real difference, and the fact that the fetus can't survive outside her is irrelevant

I've heard Libertarians make this argument before. They choose to base it in property rights. They say the fetus is a trespasser, and therefore the woman has the right to evict it, even if eviction results in death. In my view, this is nonsense. You cannot separate the performance of an action from its inevitable result. If you stow away in my plane, and I don't find you until after I take off, do I have the right to say, "You're trespassing on my plane. I have a right to remove you from my property, so you must disembark immediately. The fact that you will fall 30,000 feet to your death as a result is not my problem." No, of course not. I have to wait until the plane lands (the point of fetal viability) before I can evict the trespasser.

If the inevitable result of your action is death, the victim's right to life supercedes your right to take that action, unless failure to take that action will result in someone else's death. This is why even anti-abortion advocates generally support abortion in cases where the mother's life is at risk. If nobody's life is at risk, then everybody should have the chance to live. If both people's lives are at risk, the one who was there first (the mother) gets priority.

Even if we say the fetus has a right to bodily autonomy, you don't seem to know what bodily autonomy is. Bodily autonomy doesn't give you the right to another person's body. Per my analogy, I have a right to bodily autonomy, but that does not give me a right to your kidney. Even if a fetus has a right to bodily autonomy, that does not give it a right to the woman's body.

A fetus is an independent organism with its own DNA. It has a body, although that body is not fully formed. The topic of bodily autonomy becomes much more complex when one person has another person's body inside her own, but that doesn't mean a fetus doesn't have a right to bodily autonomy, as murder is the ultimate violation of bodily autonomy. The question is not whether a fetus has bodily autonomy, but rather at what point in the pregnancy does it gain that right, if the right is not created at conception.

Your example is comparing apples to oranges. You have no obligation to save the life of a stranger, but you surely have a higher level of obligation to your own offspring, and that obligation may supercede your right to bodily autonomy under certain circumstances.

Furthermore, comparing a pregnancy to a kidney (as I believe you've stated was your intent) doesn't work, because they're not equivalent. A person only has two kidneys, and while you can survive with only one, you will die if you lose both. A woman can complete a pregnancy without giving up any internal organs, and she can become pregnant multiple times during her life.

The entire abortion debate revolves around how to weigh the bodily autonomy right of a woman against the right of a fetus to live. Your position seems to be, "A woman has a right to bodily autonomy, therefore there are no other considerations." You have failed to demonstrate why a fetus's right to live is less important than a woman's right to bodily autonomy; you're just saying that it is, as if it's an obvious fact. It isn't, at least to people who oppose abortion. They would tell you that a fetus's right to live is more important than a woman's right to bodily autonomy, and your analogy doesn't explain why your position should be viewed as correct.

 

[Lacius]

I've heard Libertarians make this argument before. They choose to base it in property rights. They say the fetus is a trespasser, and therefore the woman has the right to evict it, even if eviction results in death. In my view, this is nonsense. You cannot separate the performance of an action from its inevitable result. If you stow away in my plane, and I don't find you until after I take off, do I have the right to say, "You're trespassing on my plane. I have a right to remove you from my property, so you must disembark immediately. The fact that you will fall 30,000 feet to your death as a result is not my problem." No, of course not. I have to wait until the plane lands (the point of fetal viability) before I can evict the trespasser.

I never made a "property rights" argument. If you want to argue with yourself, that's fine, but leave me out of it.

If the inevitable result of your action is death, the victim's right to life supercedes your right to take that action, unless failure to take that action will result in someone else's death. This is why even anti-abortion advocates generally support abortion in cases where the mother's life is at risk. If nobody's life is at risk, then everybody should have the chance to live. If both people's lives are at risk, the one who was there first (the mother) gets priority.

If you don't give me your kidney, I die. That doesn't mean the state should violate your bodily autonomy rights and take your kidney.

but that doesn't mean a fetus doesn't have a right to bodily autonomy

For the last time dude, learn what bodily autonomy is. Even if we say a fetus has bodily autonomy rights, that doesn't give it the right to use another person's body. That only gives it a right to its own body.

as murder is the ultimate violation of bodily autonomy.

The fact that an organism cannot survive without violating someone else's bodily autonomy doesn't mean it's murder if it dies. You wouldn't call it murder if you refused to donate one of your kidneys to me.

The question is not whether a fetus has bodily autonomy, but rather at what point in the pregnancy does it gain that right, if the right is not created at conception.

The question isn't about whether a fetus has bodily autonomy rights, because I already said we could pretend it does, and it doesn't change anything. I have bodily autonomy rights, but that doesn't mean I have a right to your organs, even if the consequence of me not getting your kidney is I die.

You have no obligation to save the life of a stranger, but you surely have a higher level of obligation to your own offspring, and that obligation may supercede your right to bodily autonomy under certain circumstances.

Should people be required by law to donate their kidney to any biological children who need them to survive?

Furthermore, comparing a pregnancy to a kidney (as I believe you've stated was your intent) doesn't work, because they're not equivalent. A person only has two kidneys, and while you can survive with only one, you will die if you lose both. A woman can complete a pregnancy without giving up any internal organs, and she can become pregnant multiple times during her life.

If I describe a medical situation in which someone experiences permanent changes to their body, potentially some serious health effects, a chance of death, and you can't tell if I'm describing pregnancy or donating a kidney, your argument has a serious problem.

The entire abortion debate revolves around how to weigh the bodily autonomy right of a woman against the right of a fetus to live.

The entire forced kidney donation debate revolves around how to weigh the bodily autonomy right of a person with compatible kidneys against the right of a human adult to live.

Your position seems to be, "A woman has a right to bodily autonomy, therefore there are no other considerations." You have failed to demonstrate why a fetus's right to live is less important than a woman's right to bodily autonomy; you're just saying that it is, as if it's an obvious fact. It isn't, at least to people who oppose abortion. They would tell you that a fetus's right to live is more important than a woman's right to bodily autonomy, and your analogy doesn't explain why your position should be viewed as correct.

Because you wouldn't want your right to bodily autonomy violated under any circumstance.

 

[titan_tim]

I don't have to do anything, but is it not valid to show someone they are wrong by doing the same thing they are but in a way that you know they will disagree with?

Then I'll just show you that the wording is wrong then by making you answer my original hypothetical.

So it's ok to kill people based on statistics?

That would be putting words in my mouth. I merely mentioned that your hope to have a potentially aborted fetus to go on to become the person who cures cancer is not realistic, and is more realistically going to be a terrible person. Nothing more.

So here's the hypothetical that you just don't want to answer:
You're in a burning fertility clinic in the middle of a long corridor. On one end of the corridor, there is a crying child. On the other side of the long corridor is a briefcase containing thousands of viable embryos that are scheduled for transplant that week. You only have time to save one before the building comes down. Which do you choose? (No dodges please)

 

[BitMasterPlus]

So I'm projecting the rights I already have?

You're projecting something you think you and others don't have but already do.

 

[TraderPatTX]

Then I'll just show you that the wording is wrong then by making you answer my original hypothetical.


That would be putting words in my mouth. I merely mentioned that your hope to have a potentially aborted fetus to go on to become the person who cures cancer is not realistic, and is more realistically going to be a terrible person. Nothing more.

So here's the hypothetical that you just don't want to answer:
You're in a burning fertility clinic in the middle of a long corridor. On one end of the corridor, there is a crying child. On the other side of the long corridor is a briefcase containing thousands of viable embryos that are scheduled for transplant that week. You only have time to save one before the building comes down. Which do you choose? (No dodges please)

A sure sign that the conversation is lost is when people start playing "What If" games with each other. It is a purely emotional response by people who do not have facts on their side. This is how kids argue with each other. It looks like some people just never grow up. Smh

 

[AleronIves]

I never made a "property rights" argument.

Yes, you did. It's the same argument. Replacing "bodily autonomy" rights with "property" rights changes nothing, as "bodily autonomy" is the same thing as a right to control your property, of which your body is the most essential element. The argument says that your right to control your property/body gives you license to violate the right to life of a fetus, even though the right to life is generally considered more important than the right to property (and thus bodily autonomy).

Even if we say a fetus has bodily autonomy rights, that doesn't give it the right to use another person's body. That only gives it a right to its own body.

Killing it would violate its right to bodily autonomy (as well as, more importantly, its right to life), so you're merely pitting its right to bodily autonomy against your own.

You wouldn't call it murder if you refused to donate one of your kidneys to me.

That's because I didn't cause your death; your kidney failure did. I am merely refusing to fix a problem you already had. Abortion is the opposite, as I already explained. The fetus will live if left undisturbed. Abortion is you making a deliberate choice to kill it in order to avoid having a child. Since people have (or at least should have) the right to control their own procreation, this may be morally permissible under certain circumstances, but it doesn't free you from the inevitable consequence of having to kill the fetus in order to exercise your right to not have a child.

Should people be required by law to donate their kidney to any biological children who need them to survive?

No, and that's an ineffective comparison. After your children are born, you have a reasonable expectation that they will be healthy and have self-sustaining bodies. When you have sex, you have a reasonable expectation that pregnancy will result if you don't take steps to prevent it, and it is wholly expected that the fetus will require the help of the woman's body to sustain itself for the first nine months. In other words, if a woman has consensual sex without protection, this act could reasonably be interpreted as giving consent for a fetus to violate her bodily autonomy for the next nine months, because getting pregnant is an obvious and natural result from having unprotected sex.

The entire forced kidney donation debate revolves around how to weigh the bodily autonomy right of a person with compatible kidneys against the right of a human adult to live.

Yes, and the "forced organ donation" question was already settled in McFall v. Shimp. Obviously the abortion question must be significantly different from the forced organ donation question, or Americans wouldn't still be debating it. Even so, you continue to use the flawed analogy.

Because you wouldn't want your right to bodily autonomy violated under any circumstance.

Your right to bodily autonomy is already regularly violated. The government forbids you from using certain drugs, it subjects you to invasive strip searches at the airport, and it prevents people with terminal illnesses from killing themselves in many cases. You could even argue that your employer violates your bodily autonomy by forcing you to wear certain clothing as a condition of employment. Although people can have reasonable objections to these restrictions, they are not politically contentious, because they don't usually involve life and death decisions. Euthanasia and abortion are the two main exceptions right now, hence the level of dispute surrounding them.

 

[titan_tim]

A sure sign that the conversation is lost is when people start playing "What If" games with each other. It is a purely emotional response by people who do not have facts on their side. This is how kids argue with each other. It looks like some people just never grow up. Smh

Aaaaaaaand, the typical deflect!

Sorry if answering a question which is a reflection of your true priorities in life are makes you uncomfortable. Smh.

 

[TraderPatTX]

Aaaaaaaand, the typical deflect!

Sorry if answering a question which is a reflection of your true priorities in life are makes you uncomfortable. Smh.

Let's check your science knowledge with a few questions shall we.

1. What is a woman?

2. What are the physical differences between an 8.75 month fetus and a 1 day old infant besides location?

3. What are the mental differences between an 8.75 month fetus and a 1 day old infant?

4. What are the emotional differences between an 8.75 month fetus and 1 day old infant?

5. Is a 1 day old infant more self aware and independent than an 8.75 month fetus?

 

[titan_tim]

Let's check your science knowledge with a few questions shall we.

1. What is a woman?

2. What are the physical differences between an 8.75 month fetus and a 1 day old infant besides location?

3. What are the mental differences between an 8.75 month fetus and a 1 day old infant?

4. What are the emotional differences between an 8.75 month fetus and 1 day old infant?

5. Is a 1 day old infant more self aware and independent than an 8.75 month fetus?

1. A biological woman is someone who is born without a Y chromosome. I don't care what others say, that's my definition. If someone is born with gender dysphoria, and they're no longer under the supervision of their parents or guardians, and they want to become a woman in name, then what do I care? You do you. The idea that men can become biological women is only held by a tiny fraction on the far left. It's the equivalent to saying that all right wingers want everyone to have a gun, and zero gun restrictions. Some are out there, but the vast minority.

2-5. Not much really. But I never mentioned 8.75 months. By that time the baby is able to be removed and live without the use of the parents body. Luckily, nobody is talking about abortion at 8.75 months.

The hypothetical mentions that there are thousands of embryos in a suitcase, so you can assume that they're in test tubes. Sorry, but a 1 day old infant is more important than a thousand test tubes with a collection of cells in them.

 

[ZeroFX]

If I'm considered degenerate, ho lord, that must make most people here even worse than that.

You mfking degenerate that wants a baby to live and is against self destructive practices like self mutilation. God damn you!

 

[AleronIves]

So here's the hypothetical that you just don't want to answer:
You're in a burning fertility clinic in the middle of a long corridor. On one end of the corridor, there is a crying child. On the other side of the long corridor is a briefcase containing thousands of viable embryos that are scheduled for transplant that week. You only have time to save one before the building comes down. Which do you choose? (No dodges please)

I'm happy to answer this question, but I don't think the answer proves the point you think it does. The correct answer is that you should save the child, but this scenario does not demonstrate that abortions should be permitted in the first two trimesters, because nobody's life is in immediate danger during that time. All it demonstrates is that abortions should be permitted when pregnancy complications threaten the life of the mother, and even people who oppose abortion are usually willing to make this exception.

 

[titan_tim]

I'm happy to answer this question, but I don't think the answer proves the point you think it does. The correct answer is that you should save the child, but this scenario does not demonstrate that abortions should be permitted in the first two trimesters, because nobody's life is in immediate danger during that time. All it demonstrates is that abortions should be permitted when pregnancy complications threaten the life of the mother, and even people who oppose abortion are usually willing to make this exception.

It shows the value of life that we have truly given to an embryo. 1000 embryos doesn't equal to a single child when we're put to the choice. It also shows that you don't truly believe that it's murder to abort an embryo since it would make you a mass murderer to choose a single child over 1000 test tubes.

Going further, if the single child wasn't a child, but an 80 year old man, you'd still choose the 80 year old man, knowing that he was already near the end of his life. Further lowering the idea that an embryo has the value of a baby.

 

[AleronIves]

It shows the value of life that we have truly given to an embryo. 1000 embryos doesn't equal to a single child when we're put to the choice. It also shows that you don't truly believe that it's murder to abort an embryo since it would make you a mass murderer to choose a single child over 1000 test tubes.

An embryo is not a fetus, though, just as a fetus is not a baby. Everybody agrees that the life of a baby has value, and most people agree that the life of an embryo has significantly less value. The value of fetal life is the most contentious, and the question of how much value to place on a human life at each stage of development is unsettled, because you need an explanation for your decision that can somehow satisfy both the pro- and anti-abortion camps.

 

[titan_tim]

An embryo is not a fetus, though, just as a fetus is not a baby. Everybody agrees that the life of a baby has value, and most people agree that the life of an embryo has significantly less value. The value of fetal life is the most contentious, and the question of how much value to place on a human life at each stage of development is unsettled, because you need an explanation for your decision that can somehow satisfy both the pro- and anti-abortion camps.

I couldn't agree more. Which is where the entire topic of abortion has gone off the rails in the past couple months. The supreme court has put the choice of abortion legality into the hands of some states which believe that any form of abortion is murder, no matter how early.

 

[MicroNut99]

An embryo is not a fetus, though, just as a fetus is not a baby. Everybody agrees that the life of a baby has value, and most people agree that the life of an embryo has significantly less value. The value of fetal life is the most contentious, and the question of how much value to place on a human life at each stage of development is unsettled, because you need an explanation for your decision that can somehow satisfy both the pro- and anti-abortion camps.

I would take my wife over an embryo any day.
No one is going to make me do otherwise.
There is no explanation required.

The Supreme Court is unbalanced and its decision biased.
As a matter of settled law and over 50 years of precedence it took four justices to lie about how they really feel.
A Senator from Kentucky to jury rig the system to get us here and then bam...
...stupid conversations that are best left to doctors and the people involved in the choice.

Philosophy or debate all you want, Laws cannot and never will properly address the situation of the moment for every case that involves abortion.

Involving your personal input into the very fabric of the personal lives of people that you will never meet or care to know is selfish and arrogant.

Sycophants and religious assholes involve themselves barging their way in from afar and not giving a damn about the details.
Only broad brush strokes that stoke their own egos as the laws they believe will fix a problem that does not exist.

 

[smf]

So here's the hypothetical that you just don't want to answer:
You're in a burning fertility clinic in the middle of a long corridor. On one end of the corridor, there is a crying child. On the other side of the long corridor is a briefcase containing thousands of viable embryos that are scheduled for transplant that week. You only have time to save one before the building comes down. Which do you choose? (No dodges please)

What do you mean I don't want to answer. The child obviously, I'm not sure you understand my position.

 

[smf]

because you need an explanation for your decision that can somehow satisfy both the pro- and anti-abortion camps.

Why not give them the ability to make the decision that suits them?

 

[smf]

1. A biological woman is someone who is born without a Y chromosome.

Why do you hate women? https://novonordiskfonden.dk/en/news/more-women-than-expected-are-genetically-men/

Luckily, nobody is talking about abortion at 8.75 months.

I've seen pro life people use it as an argument.