Page 26 of 56 FirstFirst ... 16242526272836 ... LastLast
Results 251 to 260 of 558

Thread: Roe v Wade is on deck

  1. Top | #251
    Cyborg with a Tiara
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Recluse
    Posts
    11,922
    Archived
    9,040
    Total Posts
    20,962
    Rep Power
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by Toni View Post
    To me, the most compelling argument in favor of maintaining Roe V Wade is that the state has the right to compel another human being to use their body in a particular way. Individuals have the absolute right to make medical decisions that they feel are in their own best interests and this right should not be over ridden by the state. Nor does the state have the right to compel reproduction in any way of any person.
    Bearing in mind that RvW does currently permit the state to compel a woman’s body to the service of the state in maintaining another being - in the third trimester. I believe that to be a flaw in RvW, and one that I would fight to close. It should be the case that AT NO TIME is one human’s body the ward of the state to be used to sustain another. And if a woman’s body is so compelled, then so should a man’s if another human has need of it to survive.

    Knowing that any action against a woman in the third trimester outside of medical need is extraordinarily rare (and would be rarer still if the hurdles against early abortions were removed, and adequate birth control made available) that provision should not be there, as it serves only to oppress women who have a tragic and unwanted need to abort (i.e. most 3rd-tri abortions are on wanted pregnancies).

  2. Top | #252
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    23,835
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    40,388
    Rep Power
    81
    The state can't compel what a woman does with her body.

    It can outlaw other people doing things to a woman's body.

  3. Top | #253
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    31,847
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    74,320
    Rep Power
    100
    So, the government arbitrarily abducts a woman, imprisons her, rapes her, and forces her to have a baby.

    Is the argument that only the first three parts are wrong?

  4. Top | #254
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    NOT laying back and thinking of England
    Posts
    12,155
    Archived
    3,655
    Total Posts
    15,810
    Rep Power
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhea View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Toni View Post
    To me, the most compelling argument in favor of maintaining Roe V Wade is that the state has the right to compel another human being to use their body in a particular way. Individuals have the absolute right to make medical decisions that they feel are in their own best interests and this right should not be over ridden by the state. Nor does the state have the right to compel reproduction in any way of any person.
    Bearing in mind that RvW does currently permit the state to compel a woman’s body to the service of the state in maintaining another being - in the third trimester. I believe that to be a flaw in RvW, and one that I would fight to close. It should be the case that AT NO TIME is one human’s body the ward of the state to be used to sustain another. And if a woman’s body is so compelled, then so should a man’s if another human has need of it to survive.

    Knowing that any action against a woman in the third trimester outside of medical need is extraordinarily rare (and would be rarer still if the hurdles against early abortions were removed, and adequate birth control made available) that provision should not be there, as it serves only to oppress women who have a tragic and unwanted need to abort (i.e. most 3rd-tri abortions are on wanted pregnancies).
    You make a very valid point.

    I am well aware of the rarity of third semester abortions and the reasons that almost all are performed. I *do* have a concern that the state or an individual could compel an abortion in the third trimester. It has happened in China. I've had a friend who was compelled to have an earlier unwanted abortion by her then spouse. I tend to look for unintended worst case scenarios...

  5. Top | #255
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    NOT laying back and thinking of England
    Posts
    12,155
    Archived
    3,655
    Total Posts
    15,810
    Rep Power
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    The state can't compel what a woman does with her body.

    It can outlaw other people doing things to a woman's body.
    That's not true. Current attempts to limit abortion would, in some cases, actually limit or make illegal birth control (Griswold V Connecticut) and criminalize women self-inducing abortion (morning after pill, some other early abortifacients).

  6. Top | #256
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    23,835
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    40,388
    Rep Power
    81
    The force is not on the woman.

    She can perform an abortion on herself. Maybe absurd but she has that freedom if she has any privacy. If the state allows any privacy it allows a woman to do anything to her body.

    The force is on other people besides the woman.

    They can't perform an abortion for her.

    The end result for most woman would be to not have an abortion but it is not the state telling a woman what she can do with her body in private.

  7. Top | #257
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    23,835
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    40,388
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Toni View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    The state can't compel what a woman does with her body.

    It can outlaw other people doing things to a woman's body.
    That's not true. Current attempts to limit abortion would, in some cases, actually limit or make illegal birth control (Griswold V Connecticut) and criminalize women self-inducing abortion (morning after pill, some other early abortifacients).
    I don't think the state has the right to do that.

    I don't think the state has the right to tell doctors they can't perform abortions either.

    But limiting abortion is telling doctors what they can do.

    It is not telling woman what they can do to their bodies in private.

  8. Top | #258
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Burnsville, MN
    Posts
    6,135
    Archived
    2,911
    Total Posts
    9,046
    Rep Power
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by Toni View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhea View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Toni View Post
    To me, the most compelling argument in favor of maintaining Roe V Wade is that the state has the right to compel another human being to use their body in a particular way. Individuals have the absolute right to make medical decisions that they feel are in their own best interests and this right should not be over ridden by the state. Nor does the state have the right to compel reproduction in any way of any person.
    Bearing in mind that RvW does currently permit the state to compel a woman’s body to the service of the state in maintaining another being - in the third trimester. I believe that to be a flaw in RvW, and one that I would fight to close. It should be the case that AT NO TIME is one human’s body the ward of the state to be used to sustain another. And if a woman’s body is so compelled, then so should a man’s if another human has need of it to survive.

    Knowing that any action against a woman in the third trimester outside of medical need is extraordinarily rare (and would be rarer still if the hurdles against early abortions were removed, and adequate birth control made available) that provision should not be there, as it serves only to oppress women who have a tragic and unwanted need to abort (i.e. most 3rd-tri abortions are on wanted pregnancies).
    You make a very valid point.

    I am well aware of the rarity of third semester abortions and the reasons that almost all are performed. I *do* have a concern that the state or an individual could compel an abortion in the third trimester. It has happened in China. I've had a friend who was compelled to have an earlier unwanted abortion by her then spouse. I tend to look for unintended worst case scenarios...
    I would further agree that third trimester abortions must be allowed to happen, also for whatever reason. Of course most of this arises from my decidedly abnormal view that "life" of the kind that is invoked in the sentence "life must be cherished and respected" doesn't start until the people to be involved with caring and nurturing for that specific life have consented to do so. As humans are brought to consummate their consent to this being a life, through their contribution of care (and through the gateway of consent of primary care givers), that is when a life becomes invested. To terminate a life with agency so vested with the consent of the involved, would make those involved "humans who have betrayed the trust of a life they consented to care for".

    Now, maybe it's just me but that is fairly clearly in the circle of "bad faith".

    It is that moment of consent that makes all the difference in the world, not for sex but for keeping it.

    I'm still going to maintain that the geometry of that moment of consent says a lot of the person making that decision. It's undeniably their decision as the primary caregiver at that stage to not consent, whatever that means to the parasitic life inside them.

  9. Top | #259
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    31,847
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    74,320
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    The force is not on the woman.

    She can perform an abortion on herself. Maybe absurd but she has that freedom if she has any privacy. If the state allows any privacy it allows a woman to do anything to her body.

    The force is on other people besides the woman.

    They can't perform an abortion for her.

    The end result for most woman would be to not have an abortion but it is not the state telling a woman what she can do with her body in private.
    You have a right to a defense in the court... you just don't have a right to a lawyer.

  10. Top | #260
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Burnsville, MN
    Posts
    6,135
    Archived
    2,911
    Total Posts
    9,046
    Rep Power
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    The force is not on the woman.

    She can perform an abortion on herself. Maybe absurd but she has that freedom if she has any privacy. If the state allows any privacy it allows a woman to do anything to her body.

    The force is on other people besides the woman.

    They can't perform an abortion for her.

    The end result for most woman would be to not have an abortion but it is not the state telling a woman what she can do with her body in private.
    Except that in these draconian places, getting a couple OTC or easily available prescription medications and combining them off label to produce that outcome all on your own is still considered illegal.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •