Do you own your body?

[Fuzzy1975]

And in this respect your opinion is different from that of the majority of people who call themselves "pro-choice." Is it your position that somebody is "anti-abortion" unless they support an unlimited abortion right up to term?

I've stated my position and my opinion on yours.

Roe v. Wade itself said that states have a legitimate interest in protecting the unborn after the first trimester. What is your citation?

in Federal law, the concept of legal personhood is formalized by statute (1 USC §8) to include "every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development." That statute also states that "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status

In the majority of states pre-Dobbs, abortion was not legal to term. Roe expressly gave states the right to regulate abortion after the first trimester, and most of them chose to do so to one degree or another. The right of privacy was not absolute. It never has been, as I pointed out in my original post.

I disagree with 50 individual states being able to dictating the biological functions of it's residents. It should be one size fits all for the whole of the Country.

The OP's original post did not specifically say it was a "legal" discussion. Since that post, if one reads over the comments, they've ranged over legal, ethical, and policy considerations. If you want to limit your discussion to the law, do so, but if you are going to do so at least cite something.

Well now you've flip flopped to the legal side, so are you discussing the legal, or ethical side? To me you're just blurring the lines and are standing on which ever side fits your beliefs.

Says who? Certainly not the Supreme Court. As I quoted above, the Court--in the majority Roe opinion, no less--specifically said that the Constitution is silent on the question of what a person is. And it further made clear that a decision on "personhood" is not essential to deciding what a woman's abortion rights are.

Says me, that who.

That the Constitution that was written back when women were chattel, doesn't mention what a person is, IMHO, a pretty silly place to jump off a discussion. The Legislators should write legislation, then the courts can rule on it. So far all that has happened is both sides bury their collective heads in the ground, each side is afraid to actually get out in front of the public and Legislate a National law on this topic. Leaving up to the courts to cobble together the current laws.

 

[Lazaran]

I don't understand what you mean by "effectively argue the absolute pro-choice position." I'm not arguing that position because I don't believe in that position. I don't believe in an "absolute" position in either direction, so I'm not going to argue for it.

I'm pro-choice in the manner I've described, but I'm also anti-Roe in the sense that I think it was a terribly reasoned legal opinion that was untethered to Constitutional text or legal history. I think Dobbs was correct to send the issue back to the states, but if I were a state legislator I would uphold a law that protected a woman's right to abortion in much the way Roe did.

Most laws that govern people's personal rights and rights vis a vis other people are state's rights. That's the normal in our federal system. Murder, rape, pornography, drug regulation, contract law, property law, marital law, tort law are all governed primarily by state law, so it stands to reason that absent a clear command in the Constitution to the contrary state law should govern abortion as well.

Yeah, I thought so…

The challenge wasn’t for you to "effectively" argue the absolute pro-choice position.



The challenge was to see if you COULD argue the absolute pro-choice position.

It was intended to be an empathy exercise.



I definitely COULD argue the absolute pro-birth position, but it would involve a lot of "feelings" and "religious / god" stuff, as well as some "grandiose savior complex" stuff and a twisting / mangling of basic medical and ethical realities.



Also: No one is "pro-abortion".

I even take exception when people say "I’m anti-abortion, but I’m pro-choice”, without specifying that they are limiting their view to themselves. - Especially when men say it.

I’m a man. Does it make sense for me to say - “I’m anti-women’s periods, but I’m pro-choice when it comes to women’s periods”???



Why would another human’s most personal and private medical decisions be any concern of a stranger or require any approval of a stranger???



There are trained medical doctors that specialize in women’s reproductive health care. Between them and the actual women with a reproductive healthcare issue, that seems to be enough interested parties involved.

 

[TrailerHitch]

So if you don't consider a viable fetus, one that could survive outside of the womb, as a human being then again what difference does it make if you abort them or kill them after live birth? What if you live birth your baby and then discover massive defects? Would it be okay to kill it then?

I'm not opposed to abortion but the fact that some here have said they support abortion up to the day of the birth of the baby terrifies me. Because it seems the next logical step is killing babies after birth that you don't want or that have defects.

 

[ll74]

So if you don't consider a viable fetus, one that could survive outside of the womb, as a human being then again what difference does it make if you abort them or kill them after live birth? What if you live birth your baby and then discover massive defects? Would it be okay to kill it then?

If you ignore the fact that the woman exists, then your question might make sense.

That is the difference as I've said multiple times.

Viable or not, every single thing up until birth affects the woman, therefore the woman makes the decisions.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

So if you don't consider a viable fetus, one that could survive outside of the womb, as a human being then again what difference does it make if you abort them or kill them after live birth? What if you live birth your baby and then discover massive defects? Would it be okay to kill it then?

I'm not opposed to abortion but the fact that some here have said they support abortion up to the day of the birth of the baby terrifies me. Because it seems the next logical step is killing babies after birth that you don't want or that have defects.

No, because all human life is valuable. I do support making it easy for women to give up unwanted babies for adoption. The fact that there are drop boxes for foundlings at fire stations has saved many lives.

 

[TrailerHitch]

If you ignore the fact that the woman exists, then your question might make sense.

That is the difference as I've said multiple times.

Viable or not, every single thing up until birth affects the woman, therefore the woman makes the decisions.

You may think that and honestly it's pretty sexist. Because any involvement by the biological father is discounted UNLESS she decide to keep the baby, whether he wanted it or not, then he is on the hook financially.

Birth control is a both partner function. That is why I always used a condom with any woman I was with up to getting married. I never trusted any woman to be honest about birth control having had 2 friends get trapped into marriage or child support by women saying they were on birth control that weren't. Men wear that condom and if she gets pregnant don't just accept her word that it's yours.

 

[TrailerHitch]

No, because all human life is valuable. I do support making it easy for women to give up unwanted babies for adoption. The fact that there are drop boxes for foundlings at fire stations has saved many lives.

Several posts ago you said you support abortion up to the day of giving birth. So which is it? All human life is valuable or only those you deem valuable. If you support aborting a viable, live birth capable baby, then what's the difference if you kill it afterwards? Location? Because you are killing it if you wait until the date of birth to abort it. You are purposely using smoke and mirrors here to defend a position that really isn't yours at all.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Several posts ago you said you support abortion up to the day of giving birth. So which is it? All human life is valuable or only those you deem valuable. If you support aborting a viable, live birth capable baby, then what's the difference if you kill it afterwards? Location? Because you are killing it if you wait until the date of birth to abort it. You are purposely using smoke and mirrors here to defend a position that really isn't yours at all.

It's not hard to hold two views on the subject. I too value all human life, and I too support the right for a woman to decide on if she wants to have an abortion at anytime in her pregnancy.

You should also take notice that I personally oppose abortion at any point in time of the pregnancy. However I have zero rights to force my views on to how another persons biological functions are carried out.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

Several posts ago you said you support abortion up to the day of giving birth. So which is it? All human life is valuable or only those you deem valuable. If you support aborting a viable, live birth capable baby, then what's the difference if you kill it afterwards? Location? Because you are killing it if you wait until the date of birth to abort it. You are purposely using smoke and mirrors here to defend a position that really isn't yours at all.

Until the baby draws its first breath it's not a person. I would support public funding of preemie care if a woman wants to end her pregnancy while the fetus is still viable.

 

[ll74]

You may think that and honestly it's pretty sexist. Because any involvement by the biological father is discounted UNLESS she decide to keep the baby, whether he wanted it or not, then he is on the hook financially.

It's not actually. All terminations of pregnancy involve a woman. Killing a baby does not. Neither involves a father directly.

Birth control is a both partner function. That is why I always used a condom with any woman I was with up to getting married. I never trusted any woman to be honest about birth control having had 2 friends get trapped into marriage or child support by women saying they were on birth control that weren't. Men wear that condom and if she gets pregnant don't just accept her word that it's yours.

I don't give a shit.

 

[TrailerHitch]

It's not hard to hold two views on the subject. I too value all human life, and I too support the right for a woman to decide on if she wants to have an abortion at anytime in her pregnancy.

You should also take notice that I personally oppose abortion at any point in time of the pregnancy. However I have zero rights to force my views on to how another persons biological functions are carried out.

I am okay with abortion in the first tri-mester. After that in my opinion it is too late the baby is forming to a point that viability outside the body is possible.

If abortion is that cut and dried then why doesn't the man have the right to abort himself of financial responsibility if he doesn't want the baby and she decides to keep it?

 

[TrailerHitch]

Until the baby draws its first breath it's not a person. I would support public funding of preemie care if a woman wants to end her pregnancy while the fetus is still viable.

As soon as it reaches a point that it could survive outside the body it is a person, biologically. Yes it is that plain and simple.

 

[TrailerHitch]

It's not actually. All terminations of pregnancy involve a woman. Killing a baby does not. Neither involves a father directly.

I don't give a shit.

All terminations of a baby involve both biological parents. Again, if he has no say in abortion then he shouldn't be forced to financially support a baby she decides to keep that he doesn't want. Financial abortion is viable if he has no say in whether the baby lives or dies.

I don't give a fuck if you give a shit or not. I stated a fact. You once again are nothing more than a fucking troll. Too bad your mom didn't abort you because you aren't even viable as a human being now.

 

[RobDownSouth]

As soon as it reaches a point that it could survive outside the body it is a person, biologically. Yes it is that plain and simple.

Viability has been established by the vast majority of scientists to occur between 22-23 weeks. There is exactly one recorded instance of a fetus surviving at 21 weeks, suffered from brain damage and breathing issues their entire life, and required millions of dollars in care to survive (I believe his Lit handle is now "Rightguide").

88% of abortions are done before 12 weeks. Why then, do pro-birth advocates insist that an electric pulse among 6 to 8 stem cells constitutes a "heartbeat"? I can think of no valid reason except for subjugation of women as little more than "breeding vessels".

 

[ll74]

All terminations of a baby involve both biological parents.

Incorrect. As stated, termination of a pregnancy involves the woman, termination of a child involves neither.

If you'd like to discuss emotional impact, certainly that varies and is subjective.

Again, if he has no say in abortion then he shouldn't be forced to financially support a baby she decides to keep that he doesn't want. Financial abortion is viable if he has no say in whether the baby lives or dies.

We're talking about abortion, not child support.

I don't give a fuck if you give a shit or not. I stated a fact. You once again are nothing more than a fucking troll. Too bad your mom didn't abort you because you aren't even viable as a human being now.

Lol

 

[adrina]

And, yet still, not one single example of an elective 8 month abortion.

For all the attention this is getting you'd think there'd be at least one verified account of this bogeyman.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Fuzzy1975]

I am okay with abortion in the first tri-mester. After that in my opinion it is too late the baby is forming to a point that viability outside the body is possible.

That is a fair view point, and I don't think many women would object to it.

If abortion is that cut and dried then why doesn't the man have the right to abort himself of financial responsibility if he doesn't want the baby and she decides to keep it?

What does financial responsibility have to do with the right to have control over your own biological functions. I'm not saying that the financial burden of raising a child is not an important issue, only that it has no bearing on a discussion around the right for an abortion.

It might be a better argument to try and bring into the discussion for the father to have a legal right to bring his "objection" into the discussion. But even that, still is a trump on a person's own right to control their own biological functions.

 

[ll74]

That is a fair view point, and I don't think many women would object to it.

What does financial responsibility have to do with the right to have control over your own biological functions. I'm not saying that the financial burden of raising a child is not an important issue, only that it has no bearing on a discussion around the right for an abortion.

It might be a better argument to try and bring into the discussion for the father to have a legal right to bring his "objection" into the discussion. But even that, still is a trump on a person's own right to control their own biological functions.

The discussion turning towards the father definitely seems like his answer to the question is "no" or at least "yes, but with conditions"

 

[jaF0]

A judge has rewritten Missouri ballot summary language that described 'dangerous' abortions​

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/ip3/abcnews.go.com.icoABC|3 hours ago
A Missouri judge has tossed Republican-written ballot summary language Monday that described several proposed constitutional amendments as allowing "dangerous and unregulated abortions until live birth.

 

[RandyRebecca]

I am okay with abortion in the first tri-mester. After that in my opinion it is too late the baby is forming to a point that viability outside the body is possible.

The first trimester ends after 13 weeks of pregnancy. That is a long time before viability. No fetus can survive outside the womb at 3 months of pregnancy. That's about another 4 months from viability, another 3 months at the very earliest. There's some astounding ignorance going on about the pregnancy cycle if you think a fetus is viable in the second trimester.

And again, we come back to the point that I made before. What is stopping any woman with your morals on abortion from simply not having abortions after the first trimester, out of moral principle? Or do you think that you should enforce your morals on abortion on all those women who disagree with them? A pro-choice position does not force morals on those who disagree. If you don't morally agree with abortion, then simply don't have one.

The reality is that they just want a culture war to distract from the things matter most, i.e. from the inequality in American society. In this thread, a poster is going on and on about "personhood" in regards to a fetus, and seemingly wants a big debate on whether a fetus is a legal person. This is basically what I believe is termed "paralysis through analysis".

 

[ericalauren]

TW: CSA, sexual assault mention. Although all antis are bad, cis men who are anti-choice are the nastiest and most vile people on this planet. My first encounter with an anti was when my classmate showed me his erection without my consent. The same boy told me “we are put on this Earth to fuck”. He later on had to go to prison for drunk driving and killing a police officer, fwiw. Not to mention the fact that the majority of men who preyed on me as a kiddo were anti-choice.

 

[TastySuckToy]

If you take away the right to abort, and force her to into your hypothetical "womb" situation. then I say Yes they have no legal obligation. If the artificial womb is an option, and not a forced choice, then No I'd say they have some sort of legal obligation, such as is with current adoption.

You'll need to clarify for me: are you suggesting the killing of the fetus is a requirement for terminating a pregnancy? Because I thought the argument was about a woman's choice and her body; if the fetus is removed, she's enacted her choice to terminate the pregnancy and her body is no longer being used to incubate the fetus.

I don't see how killing the fetus is a requirement for giving the woman a choice and giving her final say over her own body.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

You'll need to clarify for me: are you suggesting the killing of the fetus is a requirement for terminating a pregnancy? Because I thought the argument was about a woman's choice and her body; if the fetus is removed, she's enacted her choice to terminate the pregnancy and her body is no longer being used to incubate the fetus.

The post was about the responsibility (financial) of the father.

I don't see how killing the fetus is a requirement for giving the woman a choice and giving her final say over her own body.

Her body, her choice.

just like you have a body, and want control over it. Otherwise you would have no objection if Government decides it's legal to harvest one of your kidney's, without compensation of any kind. Simply because others have a need for kidneys, they will die eventually without one.

 

[TastySuckToy]

The post was about the responsibility (financial) of the father.

Her body, her choice.

We're in agreement that her choice and her body needs to be respected.

What I'm confused about is whether you're making an argument that killing the fetus is a necessity.

We know a fetus can be removed without killing it, and that completely satisfies the need to respect a woman's choice and her body.

just like you have a body, and want control over it. Otherwise you would have no objection if Government decides it's legal to harvest one of your kidney's, without compensation of any kind. Simply because others have a need for kidneys, they will die eventually without one.

A fetus isn't an organ, it's an entirely individual lifeform (ie: it's own DNA, organs, etc) that is temporarily dependent upon a host body to survive. A shrinking time frame as well as technology advances to keep a younger fetuses alive outside the mother.

My question is, do you think killing the fetus is a requirement for terminating a pregnancy? Because if the fetus is removed without harm, the woman's choice to no longer incubate it and her body is respected.

Where does killing it come into play as a necessity?

 

[Fuzzy1975]

What I'm confused about is whether you're making an argument that killing the fetus is a necessity.

If you have read my posts you will understand I am 100% against abortion, does that help to answer your question.

We know a fetus can be removed without killing it, and that completely satisfies the need to respect a woman's choice and her body.

Actually I don't know that, so you claim a 6 week old clump of cells can be removed and it will survive?

A fetus isn't an organ, it's an entirely individual lifeform (ie: it's own DNA, organs, etc) that is temporarily dependent upon a host body to survive. A shrinking time frame as well as technology advances to keep a younger fetuses alive outside the mother.

As far as my understanding goes, 24 weeks is about the time where a fetus has a chance of surviving outside the womb. I'm pretty sure as technology improves that time frame will become less, but I do suspect there will be a minimum reached where it is not possible to have a fetus survive being removed and implanted into an artificial womb.

My question is, do you think killing the fetus is a requirement for terminating a pregnancy? Because if the fetus is removed without harm, the woman's choice to no longer incubate it and her body is respected.

Why do you feel a need to ask the same question twice in one post? I don't feel a need to answer it twice.

Where does killing it come into play as a necessity?

Again, you asked this in your first paragraph, or didn't you realise that while writing this.