A Woman's Right to her Body

[Maryjane]

I refer you back to one of Maryjane's postings, (which from what I've read) you apear to support her point on the western lable of pro-choice. I have highlighted what supports the inaccruate word use, of pro-choice.



The word "perceived" is used, because the anti-abortion (pro-life) side has no problem, with the choice of a woman when she decides to NOT have an abortion.

If you're going to refer to my quotes, I prefer you not quote mine. It distorts the meaning of the quote.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quote_mining

[Apeman81]

YeaBut that's off topic and the mother's body IS the host and so is the obvious person with the power to determine whether to terminate the pregnancy or not.

Terminate the pregnancy? Oh! You mean kill the conceived human life conceived by her act of vaginal intercourse, known to result in pregnancy.

Thus the question is not simply who gets to decide to kill the conceived human life, but whether or not anyone should be able to choose to do so.

Not everyone agrees that anyone should be able to kill the conceived human life for convenience.

As the thread title states, a woman has (limited) rights to her body. The question then is whether or not the conceived human life she conceived is "her body", or a separate life growing within her body. They are demonstrably not the same thing.

[minorwork]

Thus the question is not simply who gets to decide to kill the conceived human life, but whether or not anyone should be able to choose to do so.

The should ship has sailed.

Not everyone agrees that anyone should be able to kill the conceived human life for convenience.

"Anyone" is not in the race.

As the thread title states, a woman has (limited) rights to her body. The question then is whether or not the conceived human life she conceived is "her body", or a separate life growing within her body. They are demonstrably not the same thing.

There are other questions at issue too.

You've mentioned you'd have an abortion if it was for the right reason.

[Apeman81]

The should ship has sailed.

"Anyone" is not in the race.

There are other questions at issue too.

You've mentioned you'd have an abortion if it was for the right reason.

I have? What reason would that be?

[minorwork]

I have? What reason would that be?

I'll quote you, twice.

"The right to be so threatened by the male that they kill their young to prevent the death of their young or themselves?

That's the right you want human females to have?

Okie doke. I will stand with you today to ensure that a woman so threatened, and only so threatened, will not be denied the ability to abort her child at any stage of uterine development." ~ Apeman #233

Next you've apparently forgotten about #233 and announce at#304 that rape is the only valid reason to abort.

Same old canard. Join me here and now and I will stand with you in agreement that the only valid reason for abortion is if the child is the result of rape." ~ Apeman #304

Your position is clear. You give no credit, authority, or justification to another, male or female, for an action that does not meet your criteria. It's NOT abortion you object to so much as the reasons proffered for it.

I can certainly understand that. I've gritted my teeth listening to what I think are the sorriest explanations I've ever heard, until I hear the next one, that would lay blame for a circumstance on other than self. But for me to decide for them gives them but one more person to blame. I have enough blame from my own doings, so I refuse to decide for another and insist that their progress in the Work demands taking responsibility for their actions.

[Apeman81]

I'll quote you, twice.

"The right to be so threatened by the male that they kill their young to prevent the death of their young or themselves?

That's the right you want human females to have?

Okie doke. I will stand with you today to ensure that a woman so threatened, and only so threatened, will not be denied the ability to abort her child at any stage of uterine development." ~ Apeman #233

Next you've apparently forgotten about #233 and announce at#304 that rape is the only valid reason to abort.

Same old canard. Join me here and now and I will stand with you in agreement that the only valid reason for abortion is if the child is the result of rape." ~ Apeman #304

Your position is clear. You give no credit, authority, or justification to another, male or female, for an action that does not meet your criteria. It's NOT abortion you object to so much as the reasons proffered for it.

I can certainly understand that. I've gritted my teeth listening to what I think are the sorriest explanations I've ever heard, until I hear the next one, that would lay blame for a circumstance on other than self. But for me to decide for them gives them but one more person to blame. I have enough blame from my own doings, so I refuse to decide for another and insist that their progress in the Work demands taking responsibility for their actions.

That the best you can do? Quote out of context.

You should recall that my statement was in response to your assertion that nature justified human abortion because animals do it. Unfortunately for you, your examples were of female animals threatened by males after hostile takeover of control of the group. Oddly, those being your given reasons for "natural" support of abortion, you will not agree to those terms.

As for rape, I did indeed make the comment. In the spirit of compromise, I will agree to allow bona fide rape victims to abort.

In both cases you offer as argument limited reasons to support abortion. In both cases, you are unwilling to limit abortive rights to those limited reasons. This renders your arguments fallacious. You support unlimited abortion. So stick with that.

As for your conclusion, please oh please explain that to me. You concoct a conclusion and then criticize it. Rather self congratulatory, but ineffective.

Same old crap. You won't regard the conceived human life as a human life. Carefully chosen, focus group approved terms like fetus are all that escape your lips. You refer to "choice" instead of abortion, and seek to negate that abortion on demand stipulates the comfort of the conceiver of human life is of more value than the life of the human conceived.

Selfishness is promoted over life. Good luck with that.

[Peter]

In the spirit of compromise, I will agree to allow bona fide rape victims to abort.

Lol, at first I thought WTF! Then I realized it's perfectly in line with your 'punish the children for the fathers sin' outlook on life in general. Don't mind me, carry on.

[Maryjane]

In both cases you offer as argument limited reasons to support abortion.

You won't regard the conceived human life as a human life.

I guess killing them after they're born is better. Thank gawd for the precious second amendment. Praise the lord and pass the ammunition. Amen.

[Chris the Chees]

As I've argued on here before, abortion should be legal for one very simple reason - nobody has the right to my bolidy resources but me. I can give them away, but they cannot be taken.

it doesn't matter whether the fetus is 'alive', as long as it takes the biological resources of another individual it is dependent on that individuals continuing consent. Similarly, an individual donating blood can sign on the dotted form, sit on the hospital bed, have their bp measured, have a sample of their blood taken, and all the rest, start having their blood taken and then demand that the process stop. Because they have that right. It doesn't matter that the blood may save another life, there is no legal or moral right to deprive an individual to choose what they do with their body. It is a simple fact that bodily autonomy trumps the right to life, and the suggest that pregnant women should not be extended the same legal and moral right is nothing short of crass misogyny.

[minorwork]

That the best you can do? Quote out of context.

You wish it was out of context.

You should recall that my statement was in response to your assertion that nature justified human abortion because animals do it. Unfortunately for you, your examples were of female animals threatened by males after hostile takeover of control of the group. Oddly, those being your given reasons for "natural" support of abortion, you will not agree to those terms.

I made no such assertion. That's a strawman. Your memory is short.
#218 Page 11 You asked, "AH! Killing the life you create by engaging in the act known to create life is a birthright? Well now, that just explains everything, doesn't it. And just who established this birthright?"

You asked," What makes the "gestational vessel" singularly imbued with the power to take human life in this manner?"
I responded to both, "Nature. Biology. Evolution."

I was NOT asserting. You were implying that nature did not do such as abortion. I but linked you to articles that showed it. I never did use those articles to justify abortion, only to block your implication that abortion was not natural, not practiced in nature.

As for rape, I did indeed make the comment. In the spirit of compromise, I will agree to allow bona fide rape victims to abort.

Bona fide? You suspect rape as an excuse to abort? So now it wasn't a real assertion. Now it's just a comment. I'm not fooled.

In both cases you offer as argument limited reasons to support abortion.

You're pretty mixed up here. Those were your limited reasons to support abortion. Your testimony clearly shows you making an unsolicited offer to allow abortions.

In both cases, you are unwilling to limit abortive rights to those limited reasons. This renders your arguments fallacious.

If I had suggested those two limited reasons instead of you, then you might have a point. There is no argument there by me to be fallacious. I presented the facts of nature, you accepted them, and you folded. Abortions are permitted by you if done for reasons approved by you. Why run from that position? I wouldn't if I was you.

You support unlimited abortion. So stick with that.

I support the right of the woman to reproductive rights and abortion for any of her reasons. I include abortion as one option that presents to a pregnant mother along with delivery, examination for defect and alternatives for her if defects are detected, and even termination for gender selection purposes.

Same old crap. You won't regard the conceived human life as a human life.

Oh nonsense, of course it is human. I've never said otherwise. Why rely on strawmen so? It makes your arguments weak and ineffectual.

Carefully chosen, focus group approved terms like fetus are all that escape your lips.

The hell you say. Never participated in one. Are they fun? Lots of hot chicks?

You refer to "choice" instead of abortion, and seek to negate that abortion on demand stipulates the comfort of the conceiver of human life is of more value than the life of the human conceived.

I don't think I have mentioned the comfort of a position. Pretty sure that's your bag. You more comfortable making a woman's decisions than leaving it to her?

Selfishness is promoted over life. Good luck with that.

My hope is that luck is not a factor in a woman's life but must surely accept it.

Your strawman is that an aborted child (different focus group) has been aborted for selfish reasons. It is anathema to contemplate otherwise for you. Good luck with that.

[Bhaal-Zebub]

As for rape, I did indeed make the comment. In the spirit of compromise, I will agree to allow bona fide rape victims to abort.

Unfortunatly you and I have found our line in the sand. I will not compromise on this. My reasions are. The new human life inside of her has the same equality as her, and should be treated as such, regardless. However, if the new human life is a prodigy of a rape, they can be seen, the same or more so, as the vitcim too. So I would ask every mother that has been a rape victim, and fallen pregnent because of it. Why are you carrying out capital punishment on an innocent victim by having an abortion?

[Apeman81]

Unfortunatly you and I have found our line in the sand. I will not compromise on this. My reasions are. The new human life inside of her has the same equality as her, and should be treated as such, regardless. However, if the new human life is a prodigy of a rape, they can be seen, the same or more so, as the vitcim too. So I would ask every mother that has been a rape victim, and fallen pregnent because of it. Why are you carrying out capital punishment on an innocent victim by having an abortion?

Your reasoning is correct. But I would compromise on this. Much as the founders of the nation compromised on slavery, only to end it some years later.

Not the best outcome. But better than we have now. the number of pregnancy actually resulting from rape are a pittance against the remaining "I'm not ready" selfish reasons.

Selfish people cling to their "right to my own body" callously ignoring the body within them that they created through their actions. A natural and unfortunate outcome of the general narcissism of the "me" generation.