|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Some states protect women's rights | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8558 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
that is not the same as thinking we ought to force that person to undergo surgery to extract their kidney against their will. Is this different from forcing an unwilling person to carry an unwanted fetus to term. Is the invasion of bodily sovereignty any different in these two scenarios?Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8558 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
I would say, yes, there is a definite difference. Childbirth is a natural procedure that women have been going through for quite a long time. Your mother went through it, probably. Removing a kidney requires a deliberate act. It won't happen if you just sit around and do nothing. Aren’t they the same ethically? Aren't these both examples of others determining what you can do with your body? In one case, to keep a wanted part in, in the other, to have an unwanted part removed. But the operator of the body, the soul that has to face the consequences that result from that action, does not get to decide? As for what my mother went through, I don't know. I don't remember being there. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8558 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
In the case of childbirth, what "others" are "determining what you can do with your body?" Your political party as influenced by your church.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8558 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Not a whole lot. Is that a real choice faced by real people?
Probably. Then the question is why? Got any specific circumstances that could be examined?Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8558 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
If you have a healthy fetus and a healthy mother there is no justification whatever for abortion. Except for the mother's desires. Her right to control her own personal physical integrity. Her personal liberty. I understand that isn't a concept you seem able to support but to some of us that *is* the defining concept.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8558 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
But is there really no difference between allowing someone to keep a kidney and allowing someone to abort a 39-week gestation fetus? We weren't talking about a 39-week abortion. That is at the extreme of the discussion and needs a separate treatment which I'm not wanting to do right now. Just the broader topic of abortion. I have difficulty understanding those who cannot see this as a personal bodily integrity issue. But as for a 39-week abortion, there is a reason Roe-v-Wade says what it says.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8558 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Yes, you absurdly and immorally put personal liberty above the life of another human being. Yes. I do. That is the heart of this problem. To some of us personal liberty is worth a human life. Some of us are willing to give up our *own* lives to protect personal liberty from the excesses of intrusive politics. This is not just life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness we're talking about but right down to the most basic of rights to control one’s own body. If I decide it is in my best interests to not get cut open and donate my kidney and let the poor person on the other gurney die that is my decision, my decision alone. If I decide it is in my best interests to abort a 6-week fetus, for whatever myriad of reasons I use, that is my decision, my decision alone. You, your politics, your church, the legislature, majority opinion of the society, *no one* has any right to interfere in those decisions. The pursuit of liberty does not stop at the ballot box. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8558 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
but this is one day when everything here is so sickeningly upside down, with lles, llbel, illogic, partisan slime throwing called reasoning and worse it's hard to believe No, Just a different tack on a relative morality. You put a high value on the human life. This is good. This is as it should be. But there are still some matters that are of greater value than a human life. Keeping the evil intentions of religion away from control over my body is one of them. If you can order a unwilling woman to have a baby against her will then you will feel free to justify other intrusions. More encroachments. All gays must wear a big pink "P" branded into their foreheads. We have seen throughout history what a state can do to enslave the mind and the body. Wars have been fought over this issue. And the only way to oppose those encroachments is to oppose every attempt the religiously-inspired state makes to control your body.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8558 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Which means you want to order an unwilling woman to carry an unwanted fetus to term?
And frankly I really don't give a flyin' flip what the founding fathers may think. They're all dead and this society has changed. So has our morality. I'm not surprised you cannot see bodily integrity as a primary birthright of all human's. The morality has shifted from your medieval religious tripe to the reality of the human condition in our modern global society. And in the balance the choice of the woman wins, not the dictates of your church. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8558 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Abortion, or really, infanticide, leaving a newborn out exposed to the elements to die a painful death, was a common practice in all the pagan cultures Christianity eventually supplanted in the West. You also used to burn women at the stake. The other atrocities your cult perpetrated across Euorpe are, indeed, well known. You cannot lecture anyone on morality.
while it was Christianity that There. Fixed it for you. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8558 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
I'm not a Roman Catholic. THEY murdered lots of people for rejecting their false version of Christianity, including millions of true Christians, which is MY group. Oh. Guess I misunderstood. Sorry.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8558 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
For specific circumstances, just think of partial-birth abortion. No, Sarah. Not good enough. 39-week is a hell of a difference from 15-25 week partial-birth IDX. Remember, at 39 weeks the kid is already demanding a cell phone and the car keys. I can imagine a 39-week abortion but only under the most extreme circumstances like an accident that leaves the kid stillborn. Eminently justifiable for removal. With that in mind...
Sarah writes: But what is the difference between allowing a one week old post-fetus to starve and aborting a 39-week gestation pre-child? The one is crying and pooping her pants, the other is already dead. Unless you can come up with a reasonable scenario I don't think a 39-week abortion is a reality.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8558 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
But when you say "That is at the extreme of the discussion" you are saying that it is NOT entirely a body integrity issue. That is why I cited Roe-v-Wade. SCOTUS has ruled the state has an interest to limiting abortion in the third trimester except in cases of the mother's health. They split the political hair. Regardless. Late term abortions are rare ( <1% at 24+ weeks ) and, I can imagine, are contemplated for justifiable health reasons. I consider those bodily integrity decisions as well. Unless you have some other data. So, yes, the bodily integrity issue is still paramount even in late term situations. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8558 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
That may be debatable. Depends on whether Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, Tennessee, and South Dakota, who originally voted to ratify, actually rescinded their ratifications.
We may still be 6 states short. The constitutional issue is whether a state can actually do that. Is the first “Yes” final? Is a state allowed to change its mind prior to full ratification? Since this is the ERA, whose main constituency is the female half of our population, I have a suspicion that the phrase “the right to change your mind” just took on a new dimension. I did not just say that. Then, there is the problem of the original ratification process and Congress' reluctance to extend it yet again. Republicans. That timetable has already expired. But we're still trying so your point is taken. There are indeed ongoing efforts to change the Constitution. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8558 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
When you say it's not a reality do you mean it doesn't happen, or that it shouldn't be permitted? The former. I haven't looked real hard cuz I'm lazy but I don't see in any of my meager research where a 39-week abortion was evidenced. Since as I said, at 39 weeks she's on the verge of asking about her education fund, I cannot fathom her mother allowing such a thing without the most extreme of circumstances. Late term abortion, which is rare anyway, is a political strawman that lets the anti forces think they have standing to ban it all. Your 39-week comment I took as support in that direction. Am I wrong?Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024