Do you own your body?

Apparently I offended you. That wasn't my intent.

Perhaps you should consider the questions I posed and answer them realistically.

Does your husband really own your body? Can he sell you? Can he force you to become a breeder or a surrogate? If you get pregnant, is it his choice for you to abort?

These are real world questions and realities that many women in the US are facing right now. Glib kink replies don't put you in the best light when I'd win the bet that you have limits on just how much control your husband has over your body. Especially in the aforementioned circumstances.
 
That's fair. I'd suppose the government owns or at least has the ability to control our bodies. They can draft us into the army and prohibit us from consuming certain substances, among other things.

Our freedoms to do what we want with our bodies derive from passing laws protecting our ability to do what we want with our bodies.

I would caution against the comparison of forced gestation to the draft (which no longer exists) or limiting controlled substances. The draft (and indeed all armed services) provide compensation and an array of benefits (medical care, education, life insurance, living arrangements etc) that forced gestation does not. Further the limitation of controlled substances is to prevent harm and damage to the individual and is applied equally to all (heh, at least in theory). Forced gestation causes exponential physical harm and damage and is only applied to those with a uterus of child bearing age.

Do you really believe the government owns bodies? If so, then why can't they compel you or anyone to donate their organs or blood?
 
I don't really believe the government owns bodies, but they do coerce behavior all the time.

They could compel donations of blood or organs or reinstate the draft, but it would be extremely unpopular.

I don't agree with forced gestation but saying the government doesn't own our bodies unfortunately isn't going to prevent certain people from passing laws forcing it.

Actually they can't compel donations of blood or organs. It would be an entire re-write of the letter and spirit of the laws. Even cadavers can't have their organs or tissues harvested without permission from the person before they die.

The reality is that yes they can force gestation - and they are. But it is not right. Nor is it based in any kind of legal principle. It's not even based on any religious principles. Even the taking of land has limitations under eminent domain.

The only reason that abortion is even debated is because society does not trust and does not respect women. And an apathetic voting populace paved the way.
 
Then how do you explain most pro life advocates are indeed women and a major part of society. I find it hard to believe those pro life women don't respect women. I think they respect the sanctity of life in the womb.
 
Then how do you explain most pro life advocates are indeed women and a major part of society. I find it hard to believe those pro life women don't respect women. I think they respect the sanctity of life in the womb.

Most women are pro-choice. Please keep your propaganda to yourself.
 
The voting populace felt comforted for years knowing Roe was the law of the land. Now they have to vote for politicians knowing that their vote will affect this very issue. Even Kansas voted to uphold the right to choose.

The populace was complacent and didn't bother to act when needed because *shrugs* it's just women.
 
Most women are pro-choice. Please keep your propaganda to yourself.
I didn't write women are either/ or, I wrote most *pro life advocates* are women not most women are pro life.

Pro choice does not necessarily mean pro abortion! It means choice should be an individual's decision.
 
I didn't write women are either/ or, I wrote most *pro life advocates* are women not most women are pro life.

Pro choice does not necessarily mean pro abortion! It means choice should be an individual's decision.
Pro-life doesn't mean pro-life. It means anti-abortion and pro forced gestation.

As far as "most pro life advocates are women" that's also a bullshit propaganda statement.
 
She was told premature induction of labor could be done at that stage of pregnancy only if the condition threatened her life.

Lakeland Regional Health emailed a statement from Timothy Boynton, the chief public relations and communications officer:

“Lakeland Regional Health and its physicians honor the privacy and health of each patient. As an organization, Lakeland Regional Health upholds the responsibility to care for each individual patient while abiding with all local, state, and federal laws.”

https://www.theledger.com/story/new...d-woman-cant-terminate-pregnancy/69923707007/

In the meantime thanks to idiotic and ignorant zealots, we'll be seeing more and more of this type of situation.

Yay for a government small enough to fit inside a uterus.
 
But Dr. Berger, Dorbert’s primary care doctor, said in the medical field, fetus viability happens at 23-24 weeks, when Dorbert learned the news of her baby’s diagnosis.

“Pass a law that defines viability in the way she describes it. That’s not how the medical community determines it. Be more specific. Don’t have ambiguities in your laws,” said Dr. Berger.

In the meantime, Dorbert’s medical team is monitoring her blood pressure and her baby’s heartbeat.

https://thehill.com/policy/healthca...te-baby-having-little-chance-of-survival/amp/

But hey on the upside if it goes stillborn then maybe she can get treatment.
 
https://thehill.com/policy/healthca...te-baby-having-little-chance-of-survival/amp/

But hey on the upside if it goes stillborn then maybe she can get treatment.
in most first countries in the world this would be considered a cruel and unusual punishment of the mother (AND father!). I can't help but come back to these lawmakers who refuse abortions in these cases, as to what they'd do if it was one of their own kids or even one of their family pets? Would they allow a prized pet horse to be at such medical risk in the same situation? Or the family doggie?
 
in most first countries in the world this would be considered a cruel and unusual punishment of the mother (AND father!). I can't help but come back to these lawmakers who refuse abortions in these cases, as to what they'd do if it was one of their own kids or even one of their family pets? Would they allow a prized pet horse to be at such medical risk in the same situation? Or the family doggie?
It's because they treat abortion as criminal instead of healthcare.
 
Back
Top