Do you own your body?

[SimonDoom]

A couple of questions.

How many women in known medical history have elective abortions at 8 months?

To the best of your knowledge, in what circumstances do women seek out abortions in the third trimester?

I don't know. According to the CDC (I didn't know this but just looked it up) in 2018 about 1% of all abortions were third-trimester abortions. That doesn't surprise me much. I'm not sure how it's relevant to what I wrote, however. My point is simply that the baby's ownership in its body is a factor to be considered and that the nature and magnitude of the interest changes over the course of the pregnancy and the fetus's development.

 

[ll74]

Judgments have to be made about when a fetus becomes a person, and the answer is not obvious.

It's already defined. A fetus becomes a person after birth. It's obvious and written into law.

The questions only come from those who wish to change that

 

[adrina]

I don't know. According to the CDC (I didn't know this but just looked it up) in 2018 about 1% of all abortions were third-trimester abortions. That doesn't surprise me much. I'm not sure how it's relevant to what I wrote, however. My point is simply that the baby's ownership in its body is a factor to be considered and that the nature and magnitude of the interest changes over the course of the pregnancy and the fetus's development.

The reason I ask is because you gave a very well thought out response... but without taking one very critical detail into account - why third trimester abortions take place. Your response seemingly lumped them in with elective - where the overwhelming vast majority of abortions do fall. ie those that take place prior to 12 weeks (most of those are actually under 8 weeks.)

The cause of third trimester abortions is very important don't you think?

If you think they are elective, it means you don't have a very good understanding of abortions or, worse that you think women choose to abort a fetus they have been growing and sacrificing their own bodies for for a period of at least six months. It doesn't speak well to how you think of women.

As an FYI, third trimester abortions occur because of severe fetal abnormalities or life threatening situations to the mother. All legislation in regards to abortion should be based around that fact. Not opinion - this is documented fact.

If we want to talk about ownership one must talk about the ability to own. Are we going to make fetuses a ward of the state like we do those without the mental capacity to take care of themselves? If so, that makes the woman an employee of the state as she is the one providing material support to the fetus. Are we going to compensate women for taking care of a person who has become a ward of the state?

Wouldn't it be far less complicated to regulate abortion like every other medical treatment? And trust the woman?

 

[SimonDoom]

The reason I ask is because you gave a very well thought out response... but without taking one very critical detail into account - why third trimester abortions take place. Your response seemingly lumped them in with elective - where the overwhelming vast majority of abortions do fall. ie those that take place prior to 12 weeks (most of those are actually under 8 weeks.)

The cause of third trimester abortions is very important don't you think?

If you think they are elective, it means you don't have a very good understanding of abortions or, worse that you think women choose to abort a fetus they have been growing and sacrificing their own bodies for for a period of at least six months. It doesn't speak well to how you think of women.

As an FYI, third trimester abortions occur because of severe fetal abnormalities or life threatening situations to the mother. All legislation in regards to abortion should be based around that fact. Not opinion - this is documented fact.

If we want to talk about ownership one must talk about the ability to own. Are we going to make fetuses a ward of the state like we do those without the mental capacity to take care of themselves? If so, that makes the woman an employee of the state as she is the one providing material support to the fetus. Are we going to compensate women for taking care of a person who has become a ward of the state?

Wouldn't it be far less complicated to regulate abortion like every other medical treatment? And trust the woman?

I wasn't "going anywhere" in particular with the third trimester comment. No agenda. I don't claim any expertise at all about the details of such abortions.

As far as your last comment: No, I don't quite agree with that. Because if you believe, as I do, that the fetus has its own important body ownership interest, then THAT interest cannot be left for the woman alone to decide. There's always a balancing act. I don't pretend to have the perfect answer to how to strike the balance. I just wanted to respond to your original question by saying I think the answer isn't a simple one and requires consideration of multiple factors.

 

[adrina]

I wasn't "going anywhere" in particular with the third trimester comment. No agenda. I don't claim any expertise at all about the details of such abortions.

As far as your last comment: No, I don't quite agree with that. Because if you believe, as I do, that the fetus has its own important body ownership interest, then THAT interest cannot be left for the woman alone to decide. There's always a balancing act. I don't pretend to have the perfect answer to how to strike the balance. I just wanted to respond to your original question by saying I think the answer isn't a simple one and requires consideration of multiple factors.

Okay so then the state decides. And then the state forces the woman to take on costs and expenditures because the state took on the decision making process for the fetus.

You want the state to control the woman but without any compensation. Do you not recognize the cost of growing a fetus?

Why can't it be left for the woman to decide? Do you not trust women?

 

[SimonDoom]

It's already defined. A fetus becomes a person after birth. It's obvious and written into law.

The questions only come from those who wish to change that

What the law "is" obviously doesn't set in stone what is empirically true or ethically compelling for all people. The law can be wrong sometimes, as I think everyone would admit. The question still remains. Many people consider a fetus to have personhood, and to have rights. I personally think it's complicated, but I think a fetus at 8 1/2 months is sufficiently a viable human being as to have interests that society should consider and balance against the rights and welfare of the mother.

Okay so then the state decides. And then the state forces the woman to take on costs and expenditures because the state took on the decision making process for the fetus.

You want the state to control the woman but without any compensation. Do you not recognize the cost of growing a fetus?

Why can't it be left for the woman to decide? Do you not trust women?

You're venturing into "red herring" territory here.

You didn't answer the questions posed in my first post. Do you believe that a woman's ownership and control are absolute in all cases? If not (and most people, including most women, do not) then YOU do not trust women to make decisions in all cases over their bodies and are willing to let the state intercede. This isn't an extreme or weird view; it's what most people believe.

I don't trust ANYONE absolutely to make decisions concerning another person's life, liberty, or welfare. The threshold question is whether a fetus at a certain point has interests in its person and body that the state has some interest in protecting. I do. I think it has to be balanced against the rights of the woman. I'm pro-choice, but not absolutely, without qualification, up to the end of term. In this respect I'm like the overwhelming majority of people on the subject, including the majority of pro-choice people. It's not a strange or outlier view, nor is it strangely oppressive to women's rights.

 

[Bn2f]

I wasn't "going anywhere" in particular with the third trimester comment. No agenda. I don't claim any expertise at all about the details of such abortions.

As far as your last comment: No, I don't quite agree with that. Because if you believe, as I do, that the fetus has its own important body ownership interest, then THAT interest cannot be left for the woman alone to decide. There's always a balancing act. I don't pretend to have the perfect answer to how to strike the balance. I just wanted to respond to your original question by saying I think the answer isn't a simple one and requires consideration of multiple factors.

You seem nice. You maybe (maybe) don’t deserve my anger emoji. But the willingness to debate the viability of a fetus makes me angry when the questions seemingly of care and concern are ALWAYS posed to those advocating for self autonomy of a body rather than to the POLITICAL MEN changing daily the weeks down from a said period to 0.

 

[SimonDoom]

You seem nice. You maybe (maybe) don’t deserve my anger emoji. But the willingness to debate the viability of a fetus makes me angry when the questions seemingly of care and concern is ALWAYS posed to those advocating for self autonomy of a body rather than to the POLITICAL MEN changing daily the weeks down from a said period to 0.

I don't know if I'm nice, but I try to be fair and balanced and I enjoy looking at things from different sides. I think it's useful to do so. I think it's clear from my remarks that I'm not doing this to pave the way to banning abortion.

I'll pose the question again, because nobody seems to want to answer it, although it's extremely important for ferreting out what people really believe, and the degree to which their positions are principled and consistent: do you believe in an unlimited right of ownership of a woman in her body in all cases, such as I've listed. The majority of people, including many who strongly pro-choice, do not. So, I think we all start from a position of compromise and balancing more than we would like to admit. We want to believe things are black and white because it's simple. Most of the time, it isn't.

 

[ll74]

The law can be wrong sometimes, as I think everyone would admit.

As I said....personhood is defined already. There are people who want it changed.

And yes, a woman has priority before birth in all things.

 

[Bn2f]

Adrina’s (excuse my paraphrase of your position) has been explained time and time again in this thread and remained consistent throughout many of the redundant questioning. The folks more in demand of questioning are the ones whose positions have shifted from 6 weeks to 5 and now a national ban. The SC justices and their willingness to overturn precedent and anyone else freely conflating the term fetus with baby.

 

[SimonDoom]

As I said....personhood is defined already. There are people who want it changed.

And yes, a woman has priority before birth in all things.

That's your opinion. But it's not factually correct.

There are American states that have laws that explicitly treat fetuses as persons, and give them personhood rights. The US Supreme Court in Dobbs last year turned this question back to the states, so those laws are valid, even if you don't approve of them.

Your view that "a woman has priority before birth in all things" is your opinion, but it's an extreme outlier opinion. Most people in the USA do not believe that.

 

[ll74]

That's your opinion. But it's not factually correct.

There is a definition (legal) for personhood. That is a fact.

There are American states that have laws that explicitly treat fetuses as persons, and give them personhood rights. The US Supreme Court in Dobbs last year turned this question back to the states, so those laws are valid, even if you don't approve of them.

No, there are laws that treat violence against women with added weight due to a fetus. No state legally gives a fetus a status as a person individually.

Dobbs was about abortion, not fetal personhood.

Your view that "a woman has priority before birth in all things" is your opinion, but it's an extreme outlier opinion. Most people in the USA do not believe that.

I answered your question. Roe v Wade was widely accepted as it decided abortion based on viability. I accepted that delineation as a compromise, especially since abortions after viability are almost 100% medically necessary to save a life.

People can believe whatever they want. That isn't relevant to my opinion.

 

[Bn2f]

That's your opinion. But it's not factually correct.

There are American states that have laws that explicitly treat fetuses as persons, and give them personhood rights. The US Supreme Court in Dobbs last year turned this question back to the states, so those laws are valid, even if you don't approve of them.

Your view that "a woman has priority before birth in all things" is your opinion, but it's an extreme outlier opinion. Most people in the USA do not believe that.

Yeah. You reveal your true self now.
My anger emoji is more than warranted.
And you can add a GFY as well for not engaging with honesty from the start.

 

[SimonDoom]

Yeah. You reveal your true self now.
My anger emoji is more than warranted.
And you can add a GFY as well for not engaging with honesty from the start.

How so? Can you explain or is anger the best you can do?

This is why I so seldom participate in the Politics forum. Adrina asked a good question, and I answered it in good faith, espousing a point of view that is by any stretch of the imagination a "middle of the road" POV on the abortion question.

What I've said about:

The Supreme Court's opinion
The laws of other states
The state of opinion on the issue in America as a whole

Is factually correct.

I'm not sure what cause there is for anger and outrage, other than, "I'm outraged by anybody who disagrees with me about anything."

I don't know why anyone with that attitude would want to participate in a forum like this. It's a total waste of time.

Lesson learned, I suppose.

 

[Bn2f]

How so? Can you explain or is anger the best you can do?

This is why I so seldom participate in the Politics forum. Adrina asked a good question, and I answered it in good faith, espousing a point of view that is by any stretch of the imagination a "middle of the road" POV on the abortion question.

What I've said about:

The Supreme Court's opinion
The laws of other states
The state of opinion on the issue in America as a whole

Is factually correct.

I'm not sure what cause there is for anger and outrage, other than, "I'm outraged by anybody who disagrees with me about anything."

I don't know why anyone with that attitude would want to participate in a forum like this. It's a total waste of time.

Lesson learned, I suppose.

The “oh poor me” act is played here to an overwhelmingly tiring degree. You come to the political board, to talk about one of the most controversial issues, doing the Tucker Carlson “I’m just asking…” bs and then gets thin skinned. It’s clear you have a position and wanted to spout it off despite your hemming and hawing questioning.

 

[SimonDoom]

The “oh poor me” act is played here to an overwhelmingly tiring degree. You come to the political board, to talk about one of the most controversial issues, doing the Tucker Carlson “I’m just asking…” bs and then gets thin skinned. It’s clear you have a position and wanted to spout it off despite your hemming and hawing questioning.

Everybody has a position. So what? I stated mine. Why the outrage and anger? What's YOUR position? You're the one being coy in this dialogue, other than to express your anger.

I'm not thin-skinned at all. I'm the one who is engaging while you hide behind outrage. The thin-skinned people are those who cannot tolerate opinions different from their own and tell those people to GFY.

 

[TrailerHitch]

The answer is no, you do not own your body. Whether being denied medical care, abortion for instance, or being forced to take a vaccine you don't want in order to keep your job or to be able to travel, it is clear you do not own your body.

I bet you never thought I'd say that.

 

[Bn2f]

Adrina, again, has been steadfast.
1174 said, with no ambiguity, the woman’s priority over her pregnancy upon birth.
I sent an anger emoji anticipating where you were headed. I then sent a text allowing you the benefit of the doubt. This damn thread is 81 pages long. 81! Your fresh take questions were only to serve as cover for preaching instead of an honest discussion. I stand by the only stance I’ve taken that your earnest questions should be asked to the side that moves the goalposts. But, no worries, next week this whole thing will be replayed again by someone else who happens to have stumbled on the abortion issue here on the political board.

 

[adrina]

What the law "is" obviously doesn't set in stone what is empirically true or ethically compelling for all people. The law can be wrong sometimes, as I think everyone would admit. The question still remains. Many people consider a fetus to have personhood, and to have rights. I personally think it's complicated, but I think a fetus at 8 1/2 months is sufficiently a viable human being as to have interests that society should consider and balance against the rights and welfare of the mother.

Again, what woman has ever electively aborted a fetus at 8 1/2 months? Seriously, name one.

At this point you are acting as if a woman casually decides at 8 1/2 months that she doesn't want to give birth. That's not how it happens. It's a freaking tragedy for the woman and her family. Can you at least have the respect for the situation that it calls for?

If you are going to make these types of statements don't you at least think you could operate from a place based in reality?

Or do you just distrust women so much that you think women are having abortions of convenience at near term birth?

This is the argument that is thrown up time and time again with third term abortions. You have problems but you don't even know WHY abortions are performed at 8 1/2 months.

You are not being sincere or you are being purposefully ignorant.

 

[adrina]

You're venturing into "red herring" territory here.

You didn't answer the questions posed in my first post. Do you believe that a woman's ownership and control are absolute in all cases? If not (and most people, including most women, do not) then YOU do not trust women to make decisions in all cases over their bodies and are willing to let the state intercede. This isn't an extreme or weird view; it's what most people believe.

I don't trust ANYONE absolutely to make decisions concerning another person's life, liberty, or welfare. The threshold question is whether a fetus at a certain point has interests in its person and body that the state has some interest in protecting. I do. I think it has to be balanced against the rights of the woman. I'm pro-choice, but not absolutely, without qualification, up to the end of term. In this respect I'm like the overwhelming majority of people on the subject, including the majority of pro-choice people. It's not a strange or outlier view, nor is it strangely oppressive to women's rights.

I believe that you are speaking from a place of hysterical ignorance based out of pure disrespect for women.

Women don't get to 8 months in pregnancy and think "golly gee mister I don't think I'm gonna give birth after all".

The reality is that it is the woman's body. Her control IS absolute. That is unless you want to start having the government compel tissue donations to preserve and sustain lives.

 

[Bn2f]

Everybody has a position. So what? I stated mine. Why the outrage and anger? What's YOUR position? You're the one being coy in this dialogue, other than to express your anger.

I'm not thin-skinned at all. I'm the one who is engaging while you hide behind outrage. The thin-skinned people are those who cannot tolerate opinions different from their own and tell those people to GFY.

Maybe this will help you from my end.

Fuck Adrina.
Fuck 1174.
Fuck em both for again displaying the insufferable patience of Job.
I have unapologetically added no worth to the discussion other than to express my annoyance with what I believe to be the disingenuous dance you’re taking me on to get to your point of states rights.

 

[SimonDoom]

hysterical ignorance

"Hysterical." I haven't said anything that suggests hysteria or bad faith. Nor have I speculated about the motives of women having late abortions. Nor have I denied that there may be reasons why some may want late abortions or that they may be justified. My position is a rather modest one, ranked on the scale of all abortion opinions: there are cases where in a pregnancy 8 1/2 months along I would regard the fetus's interest highly enough that I think abortion would be wrong. I can't give you a complete list of all those cases, or of exactly where I draw the line. But if you think that's an extreme opinion or one deserving outrage, then you are the one with the extreme opinion, not me.

If I'm hysterical, then the majority of this country is hysterical. The majority of laws, even the laws of states that are relatively liberal on the question of abortion, are hysterical. You've essentially defined "hysteria" to be anything you disagree with. I'd say that's a much more "hysterical" attitude than mine, but to each his or her own.

And you still haven't responded to anything I wrote in my first post, nor have your fan bunch. I don't even know why you bother to start a thread like this if you are unwilling to engage with people with whom you disagree. What's the point other than virtue signaling?

 

[SimonDoom]

Maybe this will help you from my end.

Fuck Adrina.
Fuck 1174.
Fuck em both for again displaying the insufferable patience of Job.
I have unapologetically added no worth to the discussion other than to express my annoyance with what I believe to be the disingenuous dance you’re taking me on to get to your point of states rights.

Now you're being disingenuous, because you are attributing to me views I don't have. I didn't advocate for "state's rights." I merely pointed out that states do, as a matter of fact, have laws that contrast with yours and Adrina's. That's a fact. They may be wrong, but objectively speaking the majority of the country disagrees with you.

It's revealing that you consider people as having the "patience of Job" for having to engage with people they disagree with, especially since I didn't insult anybody or say anything that is particularly extreme or provocative on this issue.

 

[adrina]

"Hysterical." I haven't said anything that suggests hysteria or bad faith. Nor have I speculated about the motives of women having late abortions. Nor have I denied that there may be reasons why some may want late abortions or that they may be justified. My position is a rather modest one, ranked on the scale of all abortion opinions: there are cases where in a pregnancy 8 1/2 months along I would regard the fetus's interest highly enough that I think abortion would be wrong. I can't give you a complete list of all those cases, or of exactly where I draw the line. But if you think that's an extreme opinion or one deserving outrage, then you are the one with the extreme opinion, not me.

If I'm hysterical, then the majority of this country is hysterical. The majority of laws, even the laws of states that are relatively liberal on the question of abortion, are hysterical. You've essentially defined "hysteria" to be anything you disagree with. I'd say that's a much more "hysterical" attitude than mine, but to each his or her own.

And you still haven't responded to anything I wrote in my first post, nor have your fan bunch. I don't even know why you bother to start a thread like this if you are unwilling to engage with people with whom you disagree. What's the point other than virtue signaling?

The fact that you believe women get elective abortions in the 8th month of pregnancy is what makes you hysterical.

The fact that you have been told exactly why women get abortions in the third trimester but continue to act as if it is elective and not a tragedy is what makes you ignorant.

The fact that you continue to cling to the belief women get elective abortions in the third trimester, with absolutely zero evidence at all, is what makes you disrespectful of women.

Your first post is full of disrespectful ignorant hysteria. Why do you think you deserve any kind of "logical" discussion when you spout such drivel?

If your pants are in a wad over being questioned, then you're obviously not up to the task.

 

[Lazaran]

Again, what woman has ever electively aborted a fetus at 8 1/2 months? Seriously, name one.

At this point you are acting as if a woman casually decides at 8 1/2 months that she doesn't want to give birth. That's not how it happens. It's a freaking tragedy for the woman and her family. Can you at least have the respect for the situation that it calls for?

If you are going to make these types of statements don't you at least think you could operate from a place based in reality?

Or do you just distrust women so much that you think women are having abortions of convenience at near term birth?

This is the argument that is thrown up time and time again with third term abortions. You have problems but you don't even know WHY abortions are performed at 8 1/2 months.

You are not being sincere or you are being purposefully ignorant.

My first clue that SimonSimple wasn’t interested in engaging the thread topic seriously, was when they entered the thread without even a basic understanding of late term abortions.

Who does that ???



SimonSimple