Steve James wrote:Get pregnant, Mike. Let us know how it feels and how it was done.
oragami_itto wrote:This is a slow clap for Ian's last post.
oragami_itto wrote:It's very simple. The woman has a right to control what happens to her body, and that right is absolute. Just as men have the absolute right to control what happens to their body.
Do you have any idea how hard it is for a woman to obtain a tubal ligation? Using the same excuses you're parroting here, concern for their future husband, and the children they might want to have. Most doctors simply will not perform the procedure unless you're a woman who is married and already has kids and your husband says it's okay.
But men can have a vasectomy any time despite their status as parents or husbands, and nobody else has to approve the decision.
THIS is the problem, which also extends to abortion laws and restrictions, lack of agency and bodily autonomy. The use of faux concern for the children to justify depriving citizens of fundamental rights.
Having a child is not a trivial endeavor, you're talking around 9 months of irreversible changes to your anatomy and biochemistry, and then either a lifetime of caring for the product or foisting it off on an already overburdened and in many cases corrupt foster care system. Having an abortion is not a trivial endeavor, the drive to reproduce is our most primal motivation. When for some reason the woman does not want to go through the process, that desire is more powerful than that primal motivation. The state has no right to interfere with that woman's life and livelihood.
Perhaps most importantly is the penalization of poverty. The rich will always have access to safe abortions for when they or their little darlings have accidents, but those of little means who are least capable of providing for new children are forced to resort to unsafe butchers without proper environments or equipment.
The tl;dr, restricting legal abortion restricts the rights of woman to be in control of their own bodies, and disproportionately affects the poor negatively and honestly I'm just done with the conversation at this point. There is nothing more that needs to be said, but I'm sure that won't stop what doesn't.
Oh, and I am the father of three children, and have paid for one abortion, and have no regrets about any of them.
I am just curious to ask though - do you think an unborn baby is part of his/her mother's body?
And when does a baby begin to have its own bodily autonomy rights?
On the plus side, I would rise in the transgressive left caste system from untouchable deplorable to woke Brahmin and Ian would have to kiss my bindi.
Steve James wrote:I mean, you pointed out, it "is" possible. The question is whether you would want to have any choice in the matter? If not, ok. Happy parenting.
Dmitri wrote:Kudos to Ed for a "reasonable adult" style of posting.
Steve James wrote:I am just curious to ask though - do you think an unborn baby is part of his/her mother's body?
And when does a baby begin to have its own bodily autonomy rights?
[Just for ededed] It's an interesting question, but humans can't be property. So, no, the "baby" does not belong to the mother in the sense of property. When a "baby" gains bodily autonomy is a different question. In reality, the mother (or someone) has bodily autonomy over a newborn, and will have that responsibility for at least a decade. Do, does a mother autonomy end when the baby is born? If she leaves it in a wastebasket, should she be held responsible?
Autonomy entails having rights, and consequently having responsibilities. A newborn could not be convicted of a crime because he has no responsibility for his actions, even if he stabs his mom in the eye with a pencil.
At best, what you present is a conflict of rights. It presumes that (in your argument, when sperm enters egg) the potential being is rational and would make the choice that you would make. I don't think that is possible to say. I agree that babies have the desire to live, as much as any living thing. However, I don't believe that we can define when sentience begins.
In any case, we can't assume the decision a rational unborn baby would make. Today, there is an extremely high rate of maternal mortality. In the US, it is bad, but in some countries it is astronomical. I don't know, but I don't think I would want to kill my mother at birth. Yeah, Tyrian Lanister's life is not for me. But, my point is that giving the unborn the power of reason and rationality, we're giving it a choice --that we can only assume. The unborn may be able to make a choice, but you can't make it for him. The mother will have the responsibility after the birth.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests