Do you own your body?

[jaF0]

Do you 'just trust' the likes of Candace Owens and Boebert and Greene?

 

[schism666]

i know this might trigger but... what are you doing about it besides chastizing men here?

 

[jaF0]

Do the people that refused to get the shots own their own bodies?

 

[schism666]

i prefer body shots.

 

[adrina]

Do you 'just trust' the likes of Candace Owens and Boebert and Greene?

It's none of my business if and when or why they choose to get abortions. Why do you think it is?

i know this might trigger but... what are you doing about it besides chastizing men here?

Call, donate, volunteer, write letters. What do you? Besides run your mouth and blame women?

 

[jaF0]

It's none of my business if and when or why they choose to get abortions. Why do you think it is?

THEY think your's is their business. And if you 'just trust' them, they'll make laws to that effect.

 

[schism666]

What do you? Besides run your mouth and blame women?

yea triggered for sure. i never blamed women for anything but you attacking me for no reason sure as heck won't help your cause with me.

 

[phrodeau]

The Draft forced men into the service of the State, and it certainly favored women.

 

[adrina]

yea triggered for sure. i never blamed women for anything but you attacking me for no reason sure as heck won't help your cause with me.

Triggered? Try frothing at the mouth angry.

Attacking? What are you doing to defend women and to defend people? You act like it doesn't effect you. It does.

The Draft forced men into the service of the State, and it certainly favored women.

The draft doesn't exist anymore and even SS reg is a joke. Yeah a requirement but a joke.

 

[Paul_Chance]

I think it's awesome that you take such an interest but I find it the height of hubris to even suggest your feelings are on par with the actual physical experience of the gestating woman.

This is the problem. You elevate your feeling above or at par with the actual physical experience of the woman. It is not the same and it cannot be the same. That is the basics of reality. Why you assume it to be so is a reflection of the imbalanced society we live in.

You may not think you own your body, but but you will never ever have to worry about someone laying claim to your organs, your body without your permission.

That you think there is a comparison between the two is... insane. To put it lightly.

I do not and did not elevate my feelings over anyone. I just expressed what they were in response to your question. Any experience has multiple components - physical, psychological (and emotional) and spiritual. (That's just me with the classic body-mind-spirit categorization.) Men cannot experience physical childbirth, but we get the other two right alongside the mother.

The classic counter-argument to "claim your body without your permission" is "selective service/draft". That is a parallel case of the state laying claim to men's bodies for a period of time and using that body (and mind and spirit) toward it's own ends, up to and including the risk of death and permanent alteration of the rest of your life against your will. When invoked, as drill sergeant's say "YOU are the PROPERTY OF UNCLE SAM". Of course we haven't had a draft in a long time, largely because the government realized draftee's may be problematic soldiers and volunteers are better at it. (Will to war and all that jazz.)

Whether we like it or not, the abortion issue remains unsettled (as demonstrated by current events) and as I stated in the initial response - legally, the state (and prior to the existent of the state) the tribe or group laid claim to our bodies, and for thousands of years that has been the reality of it. No, we do not have sole ownership and control over our bodies. To think otherwise is to deny reality (which I'm all for sometimes, have at it and let me know how it works for you).

We can certainly, as a nation-state, via our process of passing laws in accordance with the constitution, change the equations we function under. It's hard work, up to and including changing the constitution, but that's just the way it works. If we want it to work a different way, we, as a nation-state can decide otherwise. No decision is ever final and permanent unless we say it's final and permanent as a collective.

Remember, in the long game, one of the possible outcomes is we do elect a set of representative and senators and a president who all agree the decision to terminate a pregnancy rests solely with the woman and her doctor as a medical procedure and we do pass a law that binds us for generations. It's equally a possibility that we go the other way.

 

[adrina]

I do not and did not elevate my feelings over anyone. I just expressed what they were in response to your question. Any experience has multiple components - physical, psychological (and emotional) and spiritual. (That's just me with the classic body-mind-spirit categorization.) Men cannot experience physical childbirth, but we get the other two right alongside the mother.

The classic counter-argument to "claim your body without your permission" is "selective service/draft". That is a parallel case of the state laying claim to men's bodies for a period of time and using that body (and mind and spirit) toward it's own ends, up to and including the risk of death and permanent alteration of the rest of your life against your will. When invoked, as drill sergeant's say "YOU are the PROPERTY OF UNCLE SAM". Of course we haven't had a draft in a long time, largely because the government realized draftee's may be problematic soldiers and volunteers are better at it. (Will to war and all that jazz.)

Whether we like it or not, the abortion issue remains unsettled (as demonstrated by current events) and as I stated in the initial response - legally, the state (and prior to the existent of the state) the tribe or group laid claim to our bodies, and for thousands of years that has been the reality of it. No, we do not have sole ownership and control over our bodies. To think otherwise is to deny reality (which I'm all for sometimes, have at it and let me know how it works for you).

We can certainly, as a nation-state, via our process of passing laws in accordance with the constitution, change the equations we function under. It's hard work, up to and including changing the constitution, but that's just the way it works. If we want it to work a different way, we, as a nation-state can decide otherwise. No decision is ever final and permanent unless we say it's final and permanent as a collective.

Remember, in the long game, one of the possible outcomes is we do elect a set of representative and senators and a president who all agree the decision to terminate a pregnancy rests solely with the woman and her doctor as a medical procedure and we do pass a law that binds us for generations. It's equally a possibility that we go the other way.

Again, why can't the government compel you to donate your organs or provide material physical support to preserve a life?

 

[jaF0]

Again, do you 'just trust' women who want to take your rights away?

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

When I was a child, the state compelled my parents to send me to school and compelled them to have me get certain vaccines. Same thing happened when my kids were born. I think I own my body now but the property taxes are off the charts.

 

[adrina]

Tell me you completely disrespect women without telling me you disrespect women.

 

[Paul_Chance]

Again, why can't the government compel you to donate your organs or provide material physical support to preserve a life?

Because we, collectively, have decided compelled organ donation is not acceptable. For the second, uh, yes, that's called child support, which the government can and does compel.

 

[adrina]

Because we, collectively, have decided compelled organ donation is not acceptable. For the second, uh, yes, that's called child support, which the government can and does compel.

So you can't compel a person to donate organs unless they are a pregnant woman.

Got it.

 

[Paul_Chance]

So you can't compel a person to donate organs unless they are a pregnant woman.

Got it.

You can't compel pregnant women to donate organs either. (Once you donate an organ, it's gone, you don't get it back.) Apples and oranges.

 

[adrina]

You can't compel pregnant women to donate organs either. (Once you donate an organ, it's gone, you don't get it back.) Apples and oranges.

Do you really want to tell us that pregnancy does not require biological material support which is and can be detrimental to the woman?

Do you really want to go there?

Tell me how much you disrespect women without telling me how much you disrespect women. JFC

 

[jaF0]

I don't respect or disrespect anyone based on gender. I decide based on their actions.

 

[adrina]

So one person says no you do not own your body. One answers condictionnaly. The rest do not answer.

I didn't think this would be such a difficult question.

 

[Paul_Chance]

Do you really want to tell us that pregnancy does not require biological material support which is and can be detrimental to the woman?

Do you really want to go there?

Tell me how much you disrespect women without telling me how much you disrespect women. JFC

Biological material is not the equivalent to an organ. All human bodies, male and female, produce and utilize material that is then gone. Not the same as organ donation.

Nor am I arguing for forced anything. You ask question and I simply provide you with the common answers.

In the case of pregnancy, with the exception of rape and some incest, it's a voluntary activity to leads to it. An average woman (not a victim of rape or nonconsensual sex) has multiple options to prevent the pregnancy, not the least of which is abstaining from sex that could result in pregnancy, birth control (his and hers), and other intervention/preventative measures. Generally speaking, it does still require two to tango.

Whether we like or accept the pro-life crowds arguments, they have them (many of them are sincere and in good conscience on thier beliefs, just like the pro-choice advocates). Understanding them and articulating them in a coherent manner is one of the keys to refuting them, with any meaningful hope of success.

Remember all government compacts are malleable things - they change over time. What one generation prohibits, another embraces, what one generation prohibits, another embraces. It all comes down to messy details and imperfect arguments.

 

[adrina]

Biological material is not the equivalent to an organ. All human bodies, male and female, produce and utilize material that is then gone. Not the same as organ donation.

Nor am I arguing for forced anything. You ask question and I simply provide you with the common answers.

In the case of pregnancy, with the exception of rape and some incest, it's a voluntary activity to leads to it. An average woman (not a victim of rape or nonconsensual sex) has multiple options to prevent the pregnancy, not the least of which is abstaining from sex that could result in pregnancy, birth control (his and hers), and other intervention/preventative measures. Generally speaking, it does still require two to tango.

Whether we like or accept the pro-life crowds arguments, they have them (many of them are sincere and in good conscience on thier beliefs, just like the pro-choice advocates). Understanding them and articulating them in a coherent manner is one of the keys to refuting them, with any meaningful hope of success.

Remember all government compacts are malleable things - they change over time. What one generation prohibits, another embraces, what one generation prohibits, another embraces. It all comes down to messy details and imperfect arguments.

So why can't you be compelled to donate blood or bone marrow?

Eating poorly leads to diabetes type 2. Will you deny them a kidney transplant?

ETA

BC fails. Most women who get abortions were using BC. Is this about a moral judgement or the reality of the situation? So far, all I have seen is moral judgement.

 

[Paul_Chance]

So why can't you be compelled to donate blood or bone marrow?

Eating poorly leads to diabetes type 2. Will you deny them a kidney transplant?

Society could, should it so decide.

Let's say society adopts a compulsory blood and bone marrow donation law. Would I concur with it. Actually, I would.

I am already voluntarily a blood donor, and I am a registered marrow donor and a registered kidney, liver and lung donor. In the case of the liver and lung, it a partial extraction they do. I am also a registered "any organ needed" donor on death.

Why? I've known people who've needed and received life-giving transplants. As a human being, it's something I am willing to do. I'm Native American and there the difficultly of finding donors with the genetic match is hard there, so I am ready and willing to help. I routinely donate blood - I have "good vein structure" which means I can also do (and do routinely) plasma donations. I'm also personally alive due to blood/plasma donations, due to an unfortunate incident when I was younger, so it is my way of giving back.

The risk of death is small, but I'm willing to take it.

 

[adrina]

Currently however we do not. And there are principles that prohibit it.

Except for pregnant women.

Why?

 

[adrina]

Again why is it you pansy ass motherfuckers can't simply say "yes!"

You'd rather sacrifice yourselves than to say women have ownership rights over their own bodies?

Holy cow.