roeVwade:Same-sex couples updating legal status after Supreme Court’s decision on abortion (Jay Reeves) [+CNN clip]

[AleronIves]

Here's the question again.

If you are the only available donor for a patient who will die otherwise, and you do not want to donate an organ to this person, this person dies. Should you be charged with murder? If not, why?

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'll answer anyway, since I think my previous answer still applies. The reason the government cannot compel people to donate organs is based in responsibility, not in bodily autonomy. Yes, the government would have to violate your bodily autonomy in order to mandate organ donations, but that is not the primary reason why the government cannot issue the mandate. Consider this slightly altered scenario:

A patient will die without a new medical procedure that he cannot afford. You have enough money to pay for the procedure, but you refuse to pay. When the patient dies, should you be charged with murder?

If the sole reason why the government cannot mandate organ donations is that it would violate your bodily autonomy, then the government should be able to force you to help in this scenario, since helping doesn't violate your bodily autonomy. If, on the other hand, the government cannot compel you to solve other people's problems, because they're not your responsibility, then the government can't compel you to pay for somebody else's medical treatment any more than it can compel you to donate an organ.

I therefore submit that bodily autonomy is not the primary principle being tested by the forced organ donation example.

(Note that this example is rooted in the for-profit healthcare system in the US. Can the government force you to pay for other people's healthcare by taxing you and then redistributing the money? In nearly every other developed country, the answer is yes, but the example is about paying for a specific procedure out of pocket, not universal healthcare.)

 

[Lacius]

Irrelevant to you, which makes the analogy self-serving and not an argument.

No, irrelevant to the analogy. Whether or not an organism is an "autonomous being" is irrelevant to whether or not it should have a right to someone else's body.

That's wholly disengenious. If you'd pretend that murder was on the table you wouldn't be having this conversation. A parent's duty to the welfare of their children? Is that sentiment wasted on you as well?

People are not required by law to donate their organs to their biological children, so an embryo doesn't get special rights that we wouldn't even afford to real people.

The only thing that's disingenuous here is your pearl-clutching.

It's not relevant because it breaks your analogy, duh.

It isn't relevant because we don't require people to donate organs to their biological children, regardless of whether or not those children were made willfully. Hell, we don't require people to donate organs to their biological children, even if the parents willfully create their offspring, and even knowing there was a likelihood that the child would get sick and need a transplant.

I don't believe your last post was made in good faith. It was bad, even for you.

 

[Lacius]

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'll answer anyway, since I think my previous answer still applies. The reason the government cannot compel people to donate organs is based in responsibility, not in bodily autonomy.

No, it's bodily autonomy.

A patient will die without a new medical procedure that he cannot afford. You have enough money to pay for the procedure, but you refuse to pay. When the patient dies, should you be charged with murder?

If the sole reason why the government cannot mandate organ donations is that it would violate your bodily autonomy, then the government should be able to force you to help in this scenario, since helping doesn't violate your bodily autonomy. If, on the other hand, the government cannot compel you to solve other people's problems, because they're not your responsibility, then the government can't compel you to pay for somebody else's medical treatment any more than it can compel you to donate an organ.

As you admitted in your post, we already use tax dollars for other people's medical care, lol. A person's bodily autonomy rights don't extend to their wallet.

 

[AleronIves]

No, it's bodily autonomy.

You believe that the government has the right to compel one person to pay another person's medical bill? Even in countries that have universal healthcare, the government cannot do that. The government collects taxes and spends a portion of the money on healthcare, but it does not force one person to pay the full cost upfront at the time of another person's medical procedure.

 

[SyphenFreht]

From the article:

"Currently, even the states with the most stringent bans on abortion do allow exceptions when the health of a mother is at risk, though the threat of prosecution has created confusion for some doctors."

"The department says its guidance doesn't reflect new policy, but merely reminds doctors and providers of their existing obligations under federal law."

“The Biden Administration’s statement of existing law today is about nothing more than maintaining the false narrative that women’s lives are in danger in order to appease his base.”

Who are you expecting to push back and why? The interpretations I see are either political grand-standing or clarification about the law. Neither of those are really a challenge or an encroachment. From where I am sitting, the argument about abortion isn't about women's lives vs children's lives. It was about women's "rights" vs children's lives.

Mostly alt righters who either don't read very well or ones who believe a child should live despite every circumstance available. Take in point this guy, though it's not highlighted in the post I'm responding to:

Abortion kills a life every single time. That's not a belief system, that is science. The party of science who can't define a woman, doesn't understand DNA and biology. Color me shocked.

Just pointing out you hypocrisy. Isn't that what you like to try to point out in my comments and fail every time?

I'm sorry, where's the hypocrisy? We're all well aware that abortion can both end and prevent lives; the part you're trying to disagree with is exactly as I said:

Believing (see the word I used?) that abortion rights should be abolished, is a belief system.

If you can't comprehend what you're reading well enough to formulate an accurate and articulate response, you're free to ignore me for another few posts. I don't mind.

 

[XDel]

I'm sorry, where's the hypocrisy? We're all well aware that abortion can both end and prevent lives; the part you're trying to disagree with is exactly as I said:

Believing (see the word I used?) that abortion rights should be abolished, is a belief system.

If you can't comprehend what you're reading well enough to formulate an accurate and articulate response, you're free to ignore me for another few posts. I don't mind.

You kids and your double think techniques.

 

[SyphenFreht]

You kids and your double think techniques.

Ok, point out the double think then.

 

[XDel]

Ok, point out the double think then.

presupposition

You start out the gate proclaiming that abortion is a right and that to think otherwise is a belief system, or opinion, when in fact, the question "Is Abortion Murder?", has a yes or no answer. Modern science as well as all of recorded history, has regarded the miracle that takes place between a sperm and an egg as life. If I kill a pregnant woman I get a double homocide. You know these things but are crafting your statements so as to try to trick the reader into believing that it is an established fact that abortions are a right, the key word being "right", meaning that it would then be covered by the constitution if you can get the masses to adopt that wording habit without thinking into it much.

 

[AleronIves]

Mostly alt righters who either don't read very well or ones who believe a child should live despite every circumstance available.

To be fair, both sides are taking absolutist positions:

Anti-abortion camp: Fetal rights are supreme! The woman has no rights!
Pro-abortion camp: The woman's rights are supreme! The fetus has no rights!

It's impossible to reconcile these positions, so the only practical solution is compromise. If your goal is intellectual purity, then there will never be a solution, and the debate will continue forever.

Believing (see the word I used?) that abortion rights should be abolished, is a belief system.

Believing that abortion rights should exist is also a belief system. The very idea of "rights" involves a belief system, since we're talking about rules created by the human imagination.

 

[tabzer]

No, irrelevant to the analogy. Whether or not an organism is an "autonomous being" is irrelevant to whether or not it should have a right to someone else's body.

It's irrelevant to you. You made the analogy, lol. If a life is forced into a situation, then it would only be moral to see that it has a way out of that, into an equal or better situation. Your phrasing makes it sound like a baby came up to you and said, "give me your kidney or go to jail."

People are not required by law to donate their organs to their biological children, so an embryo doesn't get special rights that we wouldn't even afford to real people.

The only thing that's disingenuous here is your pearl-clutching.

Your phrasing "An embryo doesn't get special rights that we wouldn't even afford to real people" insinuates that an embryo has rights that are afforded to "real people". If the sole issue is "bodily autonomy", then a woman should not have the right to get pregnant in the first place, because it violates the potential life that doesn't have a choice in the matter. The organ transplant analogy is incapable of representing procreation and "bodily autonomy" isn't real.

It isn't relevant because we don't require people to donate organs to their biological children, regardless of whether or not those children were made willfully. Hell, we don't require people to donate organs to their biological children, even if the parents willfully create their offspring, and even knowing there was a likelihood that the child would get sick and need a transplant.

You made a crappy analogy. Referring to it and applying it dogmatically doesn't change that. It only marginalizes pregnancy and procreation.

 

[SyphenFreht]

You start out the gate proclaiming that abortion is a right and that to think otherwise is a belief system, or opinion, when in fact, the question "Is Abortion Murder?", has a yes or no answer. Modern science as well as all of recorded history, has regarded the miracle that take place between a sperm and an egg as life. If I kill a pregnant woman I get a double homocide. You know these things but are crafting your statements so as to try to trick the reader into believing that it is an established fact that abortions are a right, the key word being "right", meaning that it would then be covered by the constitution if you can get the masses to adopt that wording habit without thinking into it much.

Ok, so where is the double think in believing that abortion is a right, a belief system, saying that abortion abolishment is also a belief system, and otherwise inferring at the least that the right to abortion is a right to survival? All of these things I've stated before, separate and together, but now all of a sudden it's double think? Because you find that you can't force people to think the way you want them by badgering them with religious anecdotes or appealing to emotion? If all you have to offer is an attempt at deconstructing my argument to save your own integrity, maybe you should rethink your tactic.

I wouldn't go so far as to appeal to the Abortion is Murder rhetoric because, as what's been very evidently established, most of us arguing for abortion rights understand that abortions cause death and prevent life, as I started above, the main point of contention is whether this loss of life is more important than the loss of life in the mother (it isn't).

Furthermore, you can continue to argue all you want about what's murder and what isn't, the fact of the matter is no matter how you justify it or word it, you can't argue the rights of the fetus without admitting you're also arguing control over women. If you didn't wish to have control over women, you wouldn't be behind enacting laws that restrict what they can do with their bodies.

But then again, you're Christian, so I can't say I'm surprised that you wish to subjugate and oppress. That's all Christians have been doing since they realized they could get away with it and essentially be another form of governing body.

To be fair, both sides are taking absolutist positions:

Anti-abortion camp: Fetal rights are supreme! The woman has no rights!
Pro-abortion camp: The woman's rights are supreme! The fetus has no rights!

It's impossible to reconcile these positions, so the only practical solution is compromise. If your goal is intellectual purity, then there will never be a solution, and the debate will continue forever.

The funny thing is, I'm all for compromise. However, the compromise isn't going to come from determining when a woman should be allowed to have an abortion, it's going to come from improving the quality of life and ensuring the continued pursuit of happiness once pregnancy is attained. That won't kill all abortions (I know what I did there), but I bet if more people had peace of mind after finding out they were pregnant, there'd be far less abortions to worry about. In reciprocal, when rapes and incest victims come forward, we need better punishment, since mitigation toward these events before they happen is hard to push.

Believing that abortion rights should exist is also a belief system. The very idea of "rights" involves a belief system, since we're talking about rules created by the human imagination.

I know. I believe I explained myself above, but we'll see if the other guy gets it.

My money is on no.

 

[AleronIves]

If the sole issue is "bodily autonomy", then a woman should not have the right to get pregnant in the first place, because it violates the potential life that doesn't have a choice in the matter. The organ transplant analogy is incapable of representing procreation and "bodily autonomy" isn't real.

It isn't that bodily autonomy isn't real so much as it's not the only issue at play, and trying to reduce the complexities of creating new human life into a single issue is a gross oversimplification based on the assumption that a fetus never has any rights (or at least no rights that could possibly compete against the woman's rights), and thus the woman's rights reign supreme in all situations.

the compromise isn't going to come from determining when a woman should be allowed to have an abortion, it's going to come from improving the quality of life and ensuring the continued pursuit of happiness once pregnancy is attained.

I agree in principle that the best way to reduce abortions in the short term is to give women more control over their reproductive health. Women who have more control over when they get pregnant are less likely to want or need abortions. Unfortunately, some women will still get pregnant when they didn't want to, and so there still have to be rules regarding when abortion is allowed and when it isn't. Both sides must realise that "always" and "never" are not on the table, since the other side will never allow it. Of course, neither side will recognise this without first recognising that the other side has legitimate concerns and isn't just "evil".

 

[Deleted member 586536]

Explain to me why babies do not have the right to life. What crime did they commit?

okay, so what crime did a fetus commit when the pregnant person get's arrested? Surely they shouldn't be in prison with the mother.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

I agree in principle that the best way to reduce abortions in the short term is to give women more control over their reproductive health. Women who have more control over when they get pregnant are less likely to want or need abortions. Unfortunately, some women will still get pregnant when they didn't want to, and so there still have to be rules regarding when abortion is allowed and when it isn't. Both sides must realise that "always" and "never" are not on the table, since the other side will never allow it. Of course, neither side will recognise this without first recognising that the other side has legitimate concerns and isn't just "evil".

I'm sorry but... I'm going to put you on blast here.
The other side the "pro life" crowd. Heavily misconstrues the facts of the situation.
One of their first arguments, is that mothers were getting "late abortions" abortions so late, that it was a child.
These types of abortions historically are rare. Why? Because if you carried it that far, most doctors aren't going to abort, unless your life is on the line last second.
Most abortions happen around 9 weeks, and that's because that's the moment the person in question realizes they are pregnant. By nine weeks, there is still no major brain function. nerves can develop by then. But not exactly any mental compacity or awareness.
The "pro life" crowd. Has banned abortions after 6 weeks, when a women doesn't get's any major indicators that she may be pregnant.
Not only is this straight up unfair towards the person in question, who before they can take any major action, just has to "deal with it" or risk getting a felony, and loosing the ability to vote.
Their position also fails to understand that we can't prove that a person "did sex right" and used proper protection. Unless we want to monitor what goes in all people's bedrooms (which I believe all of us wouldn't want that) then it's better to keep the door open instead of closing it.

Finally the last argument they don't understand, is autonomy. When we're comparing a fetus to a kidney, and proving this is bad for bodily autonomy. It's not in the sense of direct comparison. But the broad implicating strokes. If the government can tell what I have to do with a specific part within my body, what's stopping them from doing other autonomy violations.

So, I'm going go ahead and use an example they constantly fear about. Vaccines.

Not getting vaccinated, is usually handled civilly. If your employer requires it (private businesses) you can get fired for it. But that's the businesses choice. The government can fine you for not being vaccinated. However, that's not a criminal offense. It's not on a long standing record. It's a civil one. Violating bodily autonomy, and regulating it, allows for states to criminally prosecute. Hence why many states are putting felony charges for people getting an abortion. As a reminder, you cannot vote if your a felon in a lot of states.

That same crowd seems to not understand, that enabling the government to regulate other bodily functions or statuses sets up a preceedent the goverment can be used against them.
To regulate that, would empower them to straight up actually regulate your vaccine status, against their autonomy, loosing rights if they refuse to do so, and rights being encroached on. Either they're aware of the future their creating, or blindly following in it in their own echo chamber of rhetoric, not realizing the consequences their creating.

 

[Lacius]

You believe that the government has the right to compel one person to pay another person's medical bill? Even in countries that have universal healthcare, the government cannot do that. The government collects taxes and spends a portion of the money on healthcare, but it does not force one person to pay the full cost upfront at the time of another person's medical procedure.

You're arguing a distinction without a difference. The government can, in fact, compel you to pay for other people's medical care in the form of taxes. Before Roe was overturned, it could not violate a person's bodily autonomy rights.

If a life is forced into a situation, then it would only be moral to see that it has a way out of that, into an equal or better situation.

Per this logic, all parents must be required by law to donate kidneys to their children if/when the need arises.

Also, whether or not something is immoral doesn't necessarily mean it should be illegal.

Your phrasing makes it sound like a baby came up to you and said, "give me your kidney or go to jail."

If a person doesn't want to be pregnant, but the state is forcing them to remain pregnant under penalty of jail time, then yeah, that's comparatively what's happening.

Your phrasing "An embryo doesn't get special rights that we wouldn't even afford to real people" insinuates that an embryo has rights that are afforded to "real people".

First, I said earlier that I wouldn't even give an embryo rights that normal people get depending on how far along the pregnancy is.

Second, my point this entire time in this and the other thread has been that even IF we recognize a fetus as a person with all the same rights as a normal human being, that wouldn't magically give it the right to violate another person's bodily autonomy. That would be a special right that transcends any other real person's rights. Whether or not the fetus is conscious, and whether or not it depends on the womb for survival, are irrelevant. I am a conscious person, but if I depend on your body for survival, that doesn't give me a legal right to it. If you decide to deny me access to your body, that's just too bad for me.

You act like you haven't heard me explain this a thousand times already.

If the sole issue is "bodily autonomy", then a woman should not have the right to get pregnant in the first place, because it violates the potential life that doesn't have a choice in the matter.

A person should have the right to do whatever they want with their body.

The organ transplant analogy is incapable of representing procreation

Yeah it is. I did it with the "kidneys for biological offspring" variation (not that it was needed), lol.

You made a crappy analogy. Referring to it and applying it dogmatically doesn't change that.

Be sure to tag me if/when you decide to justify this comment with actual reasoning.

It only marginalizes pregnancy and procreation.

No it doesn't. You just don't seem to care that some people don't want to be pregnant, and you don't seem to care about bodily autonomy rights.

and "bodily autonomy" isn't real.

If you don't think a person should have a right to bodily autonomy, then that means you're okay with the state compelling you to donate a kidney.

 

[Acid_Snake]

First of all, I never mentioned the Bible. One of my previous comments specified the Hindu religion, but people here are only interested in attacking Christianity, because that is easy. What would be so stunning and so brave is if you went after Islam, which bans LGBTQLMNOP+ entirely and is punishable by death, but you ain't ready for that conversation.

Animals don't get married. For one, they can't recite vows, and two most animals lack the ability to wear rings.

An earlier argument said that marriage is not the result of religion, so take it up with your brain dead twin leftist up above. That was the reason I mentioned Hinduism.

I don't know if no leftist here can read or if all of you are really programmed by the corporate media to say the same thing every time, but I have not once ever mentioned Christianity or the Bible. All of my arguments have been based in history and science. This is why I can't even tell you people apart anymore. You all comment the using the same words and phrases with the same lame attacks. The left is actually boring to talk to now. The only fun part is watching you cry all over these threads.

FIrst of all, I didn't attack Christianity, I'm a Christian myself. I only pointed out that using religion to make laws is something we did back in the dark ages, and we stop doing it (separation of state and church) for good reasons.

Humans are animals, I don't know where you get the idea that we're something special. All our bodily functions are given by nature the same way as any other animal. Our reproductive organs are no different from that of a lion or a donkey, there's nothing about our anatomy that suggests you need marriage to reproduce.

Marriage itself is also a private contract between two individuals. Whether you prefer that contract to be done under one specific religion, or you don't want that contract to have anything to do with religion, is all up to the individuals getting married, not up to you and certaintly not up to the government to decide.
The sole idea that homosexuals need government permission to get married is in itself a dangerous path. Everyone should be able to get married regardless of their sexual orientation or race, and regardless of if the government likes it or not.

I don't know why you consider me a leftist, since I'm an avid Trump suporter and I HATE socialism with every inch of my body.
I'm not a conservative though, more of libertarian.

 

[LainaGabranth]

Hmm, so someone should be forced to carry a fetus against their will for the sake of the fetus' "life," yeeeeet...no one can be forced to get a vaccine for the sake of other people's lives, because...?

What, because they're actually alive and aren't a fetus? lmao.

 

[LainaGabranth]

To be fair, both sides are taking absolutist positions:

Anti-abortion camp: Fetal rights are supreme! The woman has no rights!
Pro-abortion camp: The woman's rights are supreme! The fetus has no rights!

It's impossible to reconcile these positions, so the only practical solution is compromise. If your goal is intellectual purity, then there will never be a solution, and the debate will continue forever.


Believing that abortion rights should exist is also a belief system. The very idea of "rights" involves a belief system, since we're talking about rules created by the human imagination.

The reason bodily autonomy rights crowd is absolute on this is that the trans stuff wasn't a fucking singing canary to people like it should have been. When rights were (and still are) being taken from trans people left and right by the increasingly psychotic right, liberals didn't give a shit and leftists kept consistently saying "If they can regulate this, they'll come for abortion next." This is an absolute issue, because bodily autonomy rights are an absolute that cannot be met in the center on. This is why centrists are so openly loathed and mocked.

Well next thing you know, despite several libs on twitter and prominent liberal commentators on youtube, twitter, and twitch all going "Duhhhhh, no they won't, not under Biden," guess what? They came for abortion next.

Contrary to the over emotional outbursts of the right, this isn't explicitly about people wanting the ability to have abortions as much as they want for every reason. It's about limiting government overreach into the last bastion of bodily autonomy: your fucking body. If the government has the ability to regulate what you do with your womb, *ALL* bodily autonomy rights are on the table for them to devour now.

There is no moderate position on this, and there never will be until the right realizes the destructive precedent they're creating, one they'll only realize is dangerous once a leftist president gets into power and uses it against them. No one should be forced to birth a child they don't fucking want, and yet now you see cases where people as young as 11 goddamn years old are being forced to, just because a bunch of useless people believe their way of life is the best for everyone, even if they don't know it yet. That girl is probably going to have irreversible damage done to her for the rest of her life, physically and psychologically, and god forbid if she's forced to carry that child and it's even properly developed it'll have a miserable life with a shit environment, a mother that will likely come to resent it, and no access to proper care unless it's put up for adoption or taken in by someone else.

This is, and I mean this with no hyperbole or exaggeration, unironically the future of this country if bodily autonomy is not codified into law at an absolute maximum, absolutist position. You cannot, under any circumstances, meet people on the middle on this because it is fundamentally a yes or no question: should people have the right to decide what they do with their wombs or not?

Per this logic, all parents must be required by law to donate kidneys to their children if/when the need arises.

We are unironically heading in that direction and it scares the fucking shit out of me.

 

[LainaGabranth]

why is there no automatic double post patching and why can't i delete my fucking post

 

[TraderPatTX]

The fetus could be a fully formed human adult, and it wouldn't matter with regard to the topic of bodily autonomy.

So it really isn't about viability. I always knew that was lie.