A Woman's Right to her Body

[minorwork]

That is a fair summation of current law.

A bit of an odd dichotomy though, don't you think. Up to the moment of birth, with no third party intercession, the mother can choose to kill her offspring, because it is voluntary.

Odd? How is God's work odd? You going to improve upon His creating woman such that she is the final arbiter of when and where would be the best circumstances to birth? Deal with her responsibility or be jealous of it, she be the kingmaker. You are not bound by any law yet to be sterilized or in any fashion have your biological reproductive abilities forced upon you. Why would you do so to the woman just because of the gender specifics of the God given responsibilities of her biological attributes? If you don't want an abortion don't have one or don't perform it. No one is forcing these on you.

But the life is protected by law from every other person on the planet.

Sure is, once it is breathing independently and so IS a living, breathing soul.

Thus, the life inside her is a child if she wants it to live, or a fetus if she wants it to die. For whatever reason or no reason.

I certainly stand behind her there.

I find that logic highly suspect

Sure. You've no standing. If I've no standing and would like to have standing but just can't find it in a given situation, I feel the same way. But why would I want standing or a voice in a situation that is none of my business, for which I would only have my will imposed on another and walk away with no responsibilities in the life of the other which must suffer from my decisions? Hubris.

[Apeman81]

minorwork;869995]Odd? How is God's work odd? You going to improve upon His creating woman such that she is the final arbiter of when and where would be the best circumstances to birth? Deal with her responsibility or be jealous of it, she be the kingmaker. You are not bound by any law yet to be sterilized or in any fashion have your biological reproductive abilities forced upon you. Why would you do so to the woman just because of the gender specifics of the God given responsibilities of her biological attributes? If you don't want an abortion don't have one or don't perform it. No one is forcing these on you.

Pregnancy as the result of vaginal sex, known as the single natural method of impregnation. is the result of force? Really?

Should we now take legal action against the male for "forcing" the woman to become pregnant in the first place?

Oh I see. Not allowing the woman to kill the life she created is "forcing" her.

What about the woman forcing the life she created to die? Is there no concern for that "force"

You speak of God given responsibilities of her biological attributes at the same time you advocate the ability to avoid the responsibility of her sexual behavior by killing the life she created.

Interesting.

Sure. You've no standing. If I've no standing and would like to have standing but just can't find it in a given situation, I feel the same way. But why would I want standing or a voice in a situation that is none of my business, for which I would only have my will imposed on another and walk away with no responsibilities in the life of the other which must suffer from my decisions? Hubris.

It is hubris indeed to assert that another has "no standing" while offering no explanation of how standing is lacking.

A civil societies imposes its will on the members of the society all the time. There are a number of laws regarding our ability to take another life, human or otherwise. The ability to kill the offspring of our own creation for convenience sake is certainly open to the rule of the collective.

There's no "hands of my body" when it comes to what I eat, drink, smoke, or inject. I can't sell my body parts to others.

The assertion of "no standing" is preposterous on its face.

[LetThereBe]

If you do not believe there were caveats then it should be easy to prove me wrong.

What on Earth are you even talking about?
My system is very simple. The woman controls her body. The man gets zero say over her body. The man controls his property. The woman gets zero say over his property.
It really is that simple. What caveats do you think I have proposed?

As I have said many times there is no perfect solution. If the man can simply opt out then it is grossly unfair to the child.

It is far more unfair that the woman can kill it. Being dead is less fair than being without an arbitrary amount of cash. Making it unfair for someone else (the father) doesn't somehow make things fair for the child.

It is not. The example you gave it s the same as willing. In the example of my friend it is not.

Yes, because the word you are looking for is willing.

The word is insignificant. There is no reason to debate the interpretation, it simply takes us further from the heart of the matter.

You seem to think the fact that some women are unwilling to choose abortion is relevant. Please explain how this matters at all.

It was not a choice. She choice to kill herself, you just can't accept that.

If she chose to kill herself she would be dead. She either changed her mind or never chose to do it to begin with.

What word?

The word that apparently means "willing" from your statements, but according to you doesn't mean willing.

She did not have the mental ability or power to do so. She found herself frustratingly unable to do so.

Who said anything about "mental" ability? That certainly isn't in the definition. A mental ability to do something is a "disposition" to do something. That is a synonym for "willing".

There is no point in dragging the debate into a debate about the meaning of a word. The argument is boiling down to you feel it is impossible for a person to want to do something and yet find themselves without the ability to do so for emotional or moral reasons.

That isn't what I'm saying at all. You can want to do something and still be unwilling to do it.
I'm just saying it is completely irrelevant that some women are unwilling to take advantage of the choice they have available to them. They have the legal option, and that is all that matters from a standpoint of equitable law.

No I can not.

Under which definition of can? Is it that you lack the knowledge?

She did choose to kill herself and yet she is not dead.

Then she didn't choose to follow through with her choice. I can choose to order a large pizza, but maybe I won't get around to it... or maybe I'll change my mind before I make the call.

I am not keeping anything nebulous and ambiguous. I am being very clear and forthright. Emotions and or morals can prevent us from taking actions even if we want to at times.

They can prevent us from choosing certain choices. So what? How does this possibly pertain to equality before the law? The choice is still there.

Except that is not what you are doing. If a specific sentence is unclear ask about that specific sentence. That is not what you do. You take very clear sentences and twist them around or select one word and try to make the debate all about that word.

It is not clear at all, because you say that someone "can't" do something when they very clearly can.

Actually it is evidence she did not kill herself.

The fact that I have a job is pretty good evidence that I turned in an application. The fact that I'm somewhat well groomed is evidence that I chose to get a haircut. The fact that I have a car is pretty good evidence that I chose to get a car.
The fact that I'm not dead is pretty good evidence that I've never chosen to kill myself.

I have been very clear she did not decide to not kill herself. I was very clear she was very upset about it and afterwords she was still very desiring of her death.

Being desiring of something doesn't mean that you choose to do it.
I'm desiring of a beautiful friend of mine. That doesn't mean I'm willing to commit rape.

The word is insignificant. You just believe it is impossible for someone to be stopped from doing something they want by their emotions and or morals.

Not true at all. I just don't think emotions and/or morals have any bearing on equality before law and the fact that the option is indeed present.

[Trojan_Ripper]

I have a question that I think fits in.

Should anyone who is on life support…. just have the plug pulled?

[el ايمان]

I have a question that I think fits in.

Should anyone who is on life support…. just have the plug pulled?

Depending on the type of life support, the severity of their injuries, whether they are expected to recover and the time frame that has passed since they were initially hooked up, maybe.

[Apeman81]

I have a question that I think fits in.

Should anyone who is on life support…. just have the plug pulled?

Asked and answered. Terry Schiavo

[Trojan_Ripper]

Depending on the type of life support, the severity of their injuries, whether they are expected to recover and the time frame that has passed since they were initially hooked up, maybe.

Are these type questions asked in most abortions? I guess we could use the "hooked up" part as the actual "hooking up" part.

[el ايمان]

I've never had an abortion so I don't know what kinds of questions are asked. I do know, however, that a fetus which is ripe for aborting has not necessarily sustained injuries, and therefore does not have a "recovery time" comparable to a life-support patient because a fetus begins its "life" on "life support". The mother can reasonably expect to have some form of injury as a result of pregnancy.

[Apeman81]

Removed.

[minorwork]

Pregnancy as the result of vaginal sex, known as the single natural method of impregnation. is the result of force? Really?

Does a woman's ability to decide her own fate disappear from her being impregnated? Really? It certainly can by force.

Should we now take legal action against the male for "forcing" the woman to become pregnant in the first place?

When does a woman lose her ability to determine her fate? Seems you would enforce that from the instant of conception. How liberating.

I see. Not allowing the woman to kill the life she created is "forcing" her.

No less than insisting she abort against her will is forcing her when applied against her decisions.

What about the woman forcing the life she created to die? Is there no concern for that "force"

That woman's decisions affect her circle. Your decisions would affect multiples of circles indiscriminately for your not knowing the vitals of each person's circumstances. I have more confidence that the woman forcing life she created to die or live will make the appropriate decision her circumstances require, more confidence than I have of your vision's omniscience knowing what's best and more confidence than in your omnipotence in being able to intrude in the action domains of all those over which your decisions would reign.

What has the reproductive business of a woman you won't know to do with you? Unless she asks you, none at all. Forcing her impregnation is rape. What shall we call forcing her delivery against her will? My vote there is rape, also.

You speak of God given responsibilities of her biological attributes at the same time you advocate the ability to avoid the responsibility of her sexual behavior by killing the life she created. Interesting.

There it is. You think abortion an avoidance of responsibility rather than bearing responsibility for a choice made. Kind of a narrow vision isn't it considering you've no horse in her race.

It is hubris indeed to assert that another has "no standing" while offering no explanation of how standing is lacking.

Excuse me. A woman miles away should be preached at, dictated to, and have her decisions made by another who will never even hear her name, has no standing in making life decisions for this woman who lives with the responsibility of her reproductive choices. The person so forcing those actions on an unknown person has no standing, no responsibility in her life regardless of her decision.

A civil societies imposes its will on the members of the society all the time. There are a number of laws regarding our ability to take another life, human or otherwise. The ability to kill the offspring of our own creation for convenience sake is certainly open to the rule of the collective.

Aye, that's so. Acting for the sake of convenience is to be a crime? How convenient. How convenient it is to force a group's vision of purity onto another who would dare to hold against particulars of compliance with that vision.

Mob rule, the lynch mob, the witch executions at Salem. You are correct that force, whether rightly or wrongly (force does not care), can overcome a person's liberty. What limits do you place on the forces you'd unleash on a person's liberty that would satisfy the sanctity of your vision? None? The approval of one other? A democratic majority? The approval of your favored deity?

[BlackSheep]

A body part. That's the debate, isn't it. Is the life within her part of her body, or a separate body growing within her?

I suggest that is not the question. You have formulated it to be loaded. The question is simply when do we legally qualify something as human. There are other elements to the debate, but this certainly is a core one.

There's no argument that the life is a person once the birth process is complete. I say complete to allow for the incomplete birth "abortion" of the child.

Well abortion is in no way a birth.

Hence the argument focuses on the transition from non-person to person.

Any choice other than the moment of conception is an arbitrary one. There is no clear, identifiable moment in the gestation period that such a "transition" from non-person to person takes place.

Which is why we see such mental gyrations employed. The purposeful employment of the term fetus instead of child, regardless of the viability of the child. This is required to support late term, partial birth abortions.

One could easily say the other way around with people contriving to use child when it seems inappropriate.

We see the incorrect use of the term parasite (an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.) to dehumanize the child.

Actually the definition of parasite does not normally contain any reference to another species.

par·a·site (pr-st)
n.
1. Biology An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
2.
a. One who habitually takes advantage of the generosity of others without making any useful return.
b. One who lives off and flatters the rich; a sycophant.
3. A professional dinner guest, especially in ancient Greece.

I do agree that the term parasites does contain a negative connotation, but the term is not inapt.

We speak of the woman's "control over her body" while ignoring the existence of the body growing within her.

I don't thin we ignore it at all.

Throughout human existence as part of a civil society, it has been held that life is not freely taken. The 5th amendment states that a person may not "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".

We are all aware of this.

Yet some in our civil society seek to do just that, deny the person they created life. And they justify their actions with arbitrary attributes and false definitions.

Again you are doing what you complain of in reverse in employing mental gyrations. All definitions could be argued as arbitrary and the definition was demonstrated to be apt.

I do not support these actions.

Fair enough.

[grandpa]

I suggest that is not the question.
You have formulated it to be loaded.

True.

"Have nothing in your houses that you do not know to be
useful, or believe to be beautiful." William Morris.

Why did I quote that? Well, if you ask "pro-life" folks, if we allow abortion, everyone may start getting them for any reason we could possibly think of. If a baby wouldn't beautifully match the drapes, any expecting mother would consider aborting it, because the law allows it.

And, of course, they'll say it's part of a eugenics scheme. And so, eventually, abortion could creep into any pregnancy, even if the parent does not want to.

In reality, though, abortions -- and even plain old infanticide -- have been a fairly regular thing in many cultures throughout human history. If we want to prevent these things, we should favor planned parenthood, not bash it.

Grandpa h.