Roe v. Wade overturned if Trump elected- Mike Pence

[uo111 5,285]

10 hours ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

Ive had the debate on when the fetus becomes a person/human/baby too many times to get into it right now, but its actually not that relevant to the position im describing believe it or not, the position I'm talking about is entirely about the idea that pregnancy is a temporary condition upon a woman's body and the woman having full ownership of her body should be able to do what they want with it with little to no restriction. I think your statement should read "It's not ethical to allow...", if one believes in full bodily autonomy, the rights of one (human, fetus, whichever you wish) do not trump the rights of the other's control of their body at any point... So, it does logically follow that if we are legislating according to this, the time of the abortion wouldn't matter because whether or not the fetus becomes what some would call a "person", that person's rights wouldn't trump the woman's  Sorry if that sounds absolutely awful and horrible to you  The reason that we have time constraints on it currently is entirely related to the idea of when the fetus gains certain traits, can feel pain, etc.

Society deems it morally responsible for abortions to occur before a certain time. I'm not against this. Im not saying these aren't reasonable or understandable restraints, but again, in an ideal world women would continue to be rational, compassionate human beings who would have abortions in relatively short amounts of time because there would not be legal, social, or economic impediments standing in their way.

I only used the word logical because you said "logical conclusion".

You are putting bodily autonomy at a level of importance higher than human life. The level of importance that you place bodily autonomy would allow a kidney donor to get their kidney back if they wanted, since it's technically their body and they should have full control over it. Even if it kills someone else, bodily autonomy is the most important right.

It doesn't sound horrible or awful, this isn't a topic I get emotional over.

[RAMROD 118,078]

Some wealthy Republicans are backing Clinton now.

 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

1 hour ago, uo111 said:

I only used the word logical because you said "logical conclusion".

You are putting bodily autonomy at a level of importance higher than human life. The level of importance that you place bodily autonomy would allow a kidney donor to get their kidney back if they wanted, since it's technically their body and they should have full control over it. Even if it kills someone else, bodily autonomy is the most important right.

It doesn't sound horrible or awful, this isn't a topic I get emotional over.

It is still taking it to its "logical conclusion", as I explained.

And to be more accurate, Bodily Autonomy trumps the rights of another person (and again, fetuses aren't persons btw, im just gonna concede that they are for the sake of this argument) to have access of your body. This makes perfect sense. 

And no it wouldn't... Women can't abort babies after they have them, kidney donors can't ask for their kidneys back... Its a voluntary surrender of bodily autonomy. When your kidney goes to X person, it becomes their kidney.

Another example: Your brother needs bone marrow or he will die. You are not even required by law to find out if you are a match, let alone be obligated give it to him...even if it results in their death. It might be a moral failing on your part, but you aren't legally responsible for his death or anything, which is what pro-lifers say should be true for women  

Spoiler

(This is a bit more tricky for young children, but even then, the patient's bodily autonomy is markedly taken into consideration; I'm not sure that they can be actively "forced" into doing it, as the doctor must have assent from the patient and consent from the parent for ethical reasons. "Savior Siblings" are also quite real, despite being very controversial)

In reality, Pregnancy is one of the only exceptions where Western societies do not fully respect and legislate according to the concept of Bodily Autonomy. It might honestly even be the only one depending on what constitutes an infringement on bodily autonomy. (Euthanasia or the "Right to Die" might be arguably another, but that's an ongoing debate as well and varies from nation to nation  ) 

Regardless, limiting abortion rights is still an example of oppression and is just another way in which we police the sexuality of Women    

[uo111 5,285]

5 hours ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

It is still taking it to its "logical conclusion", as I explained.

And to be more accurate, Bodily Autonomy trumps the rights of another person (and again, fetuses aren't persons btw, im just gonna concede that they are for the sake of this argument) to have access of your body. This makes perfect sense. 

And no it wouldn't... Women can't abort babies after they have them, kidney donors can't ask for their kidneys back... Its a voluntary surrender of bodily autonomy. When your kidney goes to X person, it becomes their kidney.

Another example: Your brother needs bone marrow or he will die. You are not even required by law to find out if you are a match, let alone be obligated give it to him...even if it results in their death. It might be a moral failing on your part, but you aren't legally responsible for his death or anything, which is what pro-lifers say should be true for women  

  Reveal hidden contents

(This is a bit more tricky for young children, but even then, the patient's bodily autonomy is markedly taken into consideration; I'm not sure that they can be actively "forced" into doing it, as the doctor must have assent from the patient and consent from the parent for ethical reasons. "Savior Siblings" are also quite real, despite being very controversial)

In reality, Pregnancy is one of the only exceptions where Western societies do not fully respect and legislate according to the concept of Bodily Autonomy. It might honestly even be the only one depending on what constitutes an infringement on bodily autonomy. (Euthanasia or the "Right to Die" might be arguably another, but that's an ongoing debate as well and varies from nation to nation  ) 

Regardless, limiting abortion rights is still an example of oppression and is just another way in which we police the sexuality of Women    

Bolded part.

Keeping a baby inside of you longer than 24 weeks is a voluntary surrender of bodily autonomy. It's absolutely unreasonable for a woman to wait longer by choice. The baby didn't have that choice, the woman did, and thus she bears the responsibility.

[aaronyoji 2,064]

21 hours ago, Goosey said:

So you think women should be able to abort their babies after it is born? 

if they grow up thinking like u, yes. 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

2 hours ago, uo111 said:

...
Keeping a baby inside of you longer than 24 weeks is a voluntary surrender of bodily autonomy.

...

It literally is not. You're making things up to fit your argument based on arbitrary moral codes,  not science or even any form of just law. 

The vast majority of women are responsible* with abortion and don't want to extend their time being pregnant, thats part of the point of wanting an abortion, if a woman makes it to 24 weeks there are other reasons beyond "irresponsibility" for her getting there. It's also true that some women don't get pregnant and decide within hours or just a few days or even a few weeks that they want or need an abortion. Things come up, its a tough decision to make. Women arent just going through their lives happily pregnant for 24 weeks and then being like "nah, I don't want it", but even if this were the case, I would support it entirely and it shouldn't be stigmatized. 

While Late Term Abortions only make up about 1% of annual abortions (in the U.S.) there are lots of valid reasons people have them; the majority of them occur for what are wanted pregnancies in the first place. People don't find out about certain birth defects and other risks that might harm the mother (or prolong the suffering of the baby) until around 20 weeks for example. It's more cruel to be forced to carry a baby for 4 more months knowing that it will certainly die, be in pain, or will directly hurt the mother than to have a late term abortion. Even then, late term abortions can cost over $10,000 and not every woman who ends up having one has the financial means to pay for that and you can bet her insurance isn't going to pay for it  Also, she has to travel the country as only 4 doctors in America will perform it and there is a screening process. These doctors face legitimate death threats too, some late term abortion providers (and abortion providers in general) have been murdered, clinics attacked, shot up, etc. all in the name of "Pro Life!" bullshit.

Some people honestly don't know they are pregnant for relatively long periods of time as well. Couple that with the ease of access of getting an abortion and there are several ways that pregnant people can end up having abortions weeks and even months later than what they would have like to have done.

There are SO many factors that come into play that simply saying "you waited to long, you forfeit your right to control your body" is total bullshit. It also completely ignores the reality of the society we live in. You can't justify society actively preventing and discouraging women from getting abortions and extending their pregnancies, then once they've been forced to endure that, preventing them from having them at all. "Sorry, you waited too long, you don't have the right to a say in what happens with your body anymore" is basically what you are saying  It's simply an insidious way of trying to make abortion "de facto" illegal. Conservatives have been using this kind of method on social issues for a very very long time  

Besides, the only reason that "20 weeks" or "24 weeks" is a thing is because of some very murky science about the baby feeling pain and then the absolute earliest amount of time before it becomes viable. 

And again, you are missing this point. Even if the fetus were considered legally a person, (it's not and it shouldn't be imo) it's rights would not trump the right of the person carrying it. It would have no legal claim to that person's body, end of story. This is not some hypothetical concept that feminazi's just came up with out of thin air to defend abortion or anything  It's based on preexisting beliefs and ideology.

Also, this debate is primarily an American one. In Canada, Abortion has been legal at any stage and for any reason for almost 30 years. It's not a radical idea whatsoever. Bodily Autonomy should be the law of the land, abortion allowed at any stage for any reason and access should be unfettered. 

Don't quote me again please, I'm not saying this again  

 

[uo111 5,285]

12 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

It literally is not. You're making things up to fit your argument based on arbitrary moral codes,  not science or even any form of just law. 

The vast majority of women are responsible* with abortion and don't want to extend their time being pregnant, thats part of the point of wanting an abortion, if a woman makes it to 24 weeks there are other reasons beyond "irresponsibility" for her getting there. It's also true that some women don't get pregnant and decide within hours or just a few days or even a few weeks that they want or need an abortion. Things come up, its a tough decision to make. Women arent just going through their lives happily pregnant for 24 weeks and then being like "nah, I don't want it", but even if this were the case, I would support it entirely and it shouldn't be stigmatized. 

While Late Term Abortions only make up about 1% of annual abortions (in the U.S.) there are lots of valid reasons people have them; the majority of them occur for what are wanted pregnancies in the first place. People don't find out about certain birth defects and other risks that might harm the mother (or prolong the suffering of the baby) until around 20 weeks for example. It's more cruel to be forced to carry a baby for 4 more months knowing that it will certainly die, be in pain, or will directly hurt the mother than to have a late term abortion. Even then, late term abortions can cost over $10,000 and not every woman who ends up having one has the financial means to pay for that and you can bet her insurance isn't going to pay for it  Also, she has to travel the country as only 4 doctors in America will perform it and there is a screening process. These doctors face legitimate death threats too, some late term abortion providers (and abortion providers in general) have been murdered, clinics attacked, shot up, etc. all in the name of "Pro Life!" bullshit.

Some people honestly don't know they are pregnant for relatively long periods of time as well. Couple that with the ease of access of getting an abortion and there are several ways that pregnant people can end up having abortions weeks and even months later than what they would have like to have done.

There are SO many factors that come into play that simply saying "you waited to long, you forfeit your right to control your body" is total bullshit. It also completely ignores the reality of the society we live in. You can't justify society actively preventing and discouraging women from getting abortions and extending their pregnancies, then once they've been forced to endure that, preventing them from having them at all. "Sorry, you waited too long, you don't have the right to a say in what happens with your body anymore" is basically what you are saying  It's simply an insidious way of trying to make abortion "de facto" illegal. Conservatives have been using this kind of method on social issues for a very very long time  

Besides, the only reason that "20 weeks" or "24 weeks" is a thing is because of some very murky science about the baby feeling pain and then the absolute earliest amount of time before it becomes viable. 

And again, you are missing this point. Even if the fetus were considered legally a person, (it's not and it shouldn't be imo) it's rights would not trump the right of the person carrying it. It would have no legal claim to that person's body, end of story. This is not some hypothetical concept that feminazi's just came up with out of thin air to defend abortion or anything  It's based on preexisting beliefs and ideology.

Also, this debate is primarily an American one. In Canada, Abortion has been legal at any stage and for any reason for almost 30 years. It's not a radical idea whatsoever. Bodily Autonomy should be the law of the land, abortion allowed at any stage for any reason and access should be unfettered. 

Don't quote me again please, I'm not saying this again  

 

The entire idea of bodily autonomy is made up and it isn't a right in much of the world. Please don't delude yourself into thinking your viewpoint is more logical or has stronger ground to stand on. Bodily autonomy is not very high on the list of rights, it certainly doesn't trump the right to life. If 24 weeks is "murky science", what do you think that makes your bodily autonomy argument? Just saying "your ideas are bad, my ideas are great" doesn't make it fact.

Most of what your saying doesn't relate at all to what I'm saying anyways. Your treating me as a pro-life person because I think 24 weeks is a good cut off for normal abortions. As if I agree with closing down abortion clinics, forcing women to give birth to babies with half a brain or making abortions prohibitively expensive.

[Kayla 7,595]

Here's the thing about abortion - 

We're talking about human rights, are we not?

Which means that we need to clearly define what makes something a "human person," thus establishing "personhood," thus making it eligible for basic human rights- i.e. the right to live. 

So where do you draw that line? At sperm and egg? At zygote? the moment a sperm and egg join? When the baby is born? When you can recognize a fetus as a baby on an ultrasound? 

The reasonable scientific and social compromise put that establishment of "personhood" at the development of the neocortex, which is at the 20-22 week mark. (roughly 5 months, so somewhere in the second trimester) This is why it is often illegal to abort in the third trimester - by that time the neocortex and other essential functioning body parts of the baby have developed, making it a definable "person" (instead of a collection of cells with a potential to be a person) thus enabling it for human rights. 

It's not about the baby feeling pain at the 20-22 week mark, although that could play into it, it's about how that point in the development separates it from a being living thing with potential to be a person as defined by the concept of "personhood" to being an actual "person" eligible for human rights. 

And considering pregnancy starts at sperm shooting into a vagina and wiggling into an egg, you DO need to draw that line somewhere that makes sense. A sperm burying it's little head into an egg- doesn't make sense to call that a "human," does it?

NOW. Not allowing a woman to choose to terminate a pregnancy in that first 20 weeks indicates that you believe a living, thinking, established human person should have LESS rights to what happens to her body than a collection of cells with a potential to be a fully functioning human person. You are giving human rights to something that is not human under the knowledge that it has the potential to develop as such, and you are taking body ownership away from a woman who does not WANT to have another living thing feeding off of her. I find this to be insulting. 

Especially considering the world is already populated enough, we already have enough children in foster care, and it's wrong to force someone to be a parent when they don't want to be, I think allowing abortions at least within the first 20-22 weeks to be extremely fair, but after that I do think the concept of human rights as they apply to the baby are also a fair thing to take into consideration. 

(EDIT: the 20-22 week mark also has to do with viability outside the womb)

[Letmelivemylife 8,715]

I got pregnant at 14 and had an abortion. I've regretted it everyday since. Despite this, if abortion would've been illegal, I can guarentee I would be dying of some horrific disease from. A back alley abortion