Abortion

[lostone]

The only two arguments I don't accept are "God said so" and "Its my body my choice."

What other choices regarding a woman's body do you reserve oversight on? It isn't simply an issue of 'it is happening inside them', it is an issue of 'long after the baby has been born, the consequences of the pregnancy to their body will continue for varying periods of time for varying issues (physical and mental)'.

Its inside her body, but its not her body. The body goes to great lengths to keep the mothers body from "eating" the baby's body (possible baby's body).

I am talking about the Mother's body. That is what takes the physical and mental and psychological toll of pregnancy and birth.

Yuppers, and thats at the heart of it.

You changed it to focus on two separate "bodies". Which, as a point of fact, I did. So the question then becomes when does the mother's choice to do what they want get over ridden by the act of "murder". We know when it exits the mother can't just say "my body my choice". No matter what. we then circle back to the original "when is it human?"

All I am really saying is just present the argument for/against without those two statements. Pro choice leaves out "My body my choice." and the pro lifers leave out "because god said so." I kind of think people doing that might actually make them think just a tad deeper.

One traditional view of when it becomes human is quickening; another is when the head comes out of the womb. Is this 'moment of conception' used by Pro-Lifers a newly minted view, circa 1973. or so?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The only two arguments I don't accept are "God said so" and "Its my body my choice."

What other choices regarding a woman's body do you reserve oversight on? It isn't simply an issue of 'it is happening inside them', it is an issue of 'long after the baby has been born, the consequences of the pregnancy to their body will continue for varying periods of time for varying issues (physical and mental)'.

Its inside her body, but its not her body. The body goes to great lengths to keep the mothers body from "eating" the baby's body (possible baby's body).

I am talking about the Mother's body. That is what takes the physical and mental and psychological toll of pregnancy and birth.

Yuppers, and thats at the heart of it.

You changed it to focus on two separate "bodies". Which, as a point of fact, I did. So the question then becomes when does the mother's choice to do what they want get over ridden by the act of "murder". We know when it exits the mother can't just say "my body my choice". No matter what. we then circle back to the original "when is it human?"

Actually, the question is, when does the state have the right to intercede in the personal decisions a woman makes regarding her own body. The Government needs a warrant to draw blood from a pregnant woman... but now a Government can tell her to remain pregnant and give birth. This seems inconsistent. It has been a while since the rights of the unborn have superceded the rights of the living.

All I am really saying is just present the argument for/against without those two statements. Pro choice leaves out "My body my choice." and the pro lifers leave out "because god said so." I kind of think people doing that might actually make them think just a tad deeper.

Well, the reasonable compromise seemed to be when it was viable without exotic medical support. That seemed like a good meeting place. But this was never about the fetus for the right-wing.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

One other thing... "My body my choice" isn't some sort of emotional position. To mock "my body..." is to completely ignore what is pregnancy. Becomes a Kate McKinnon... 'just do your nine' caricature. Being pregnant is so much more than just "my body...", it becomes their whole existence for several months (ignoring TYPICAL post pregnancy health issues). What they eat/drink, how they sleep, general comfort, clothes, doctors appointments, fatigue. There is no aspect of a pregnant woman's life that isn't impacted by the pregnancy. So handwaving away "my body..." is a shit kind of thing to do. Because "my body..." isn't just their body, it is "their life".

 

[prideandfall]

One other thing... "My body my choice" isn't some sort of emotional position. To mock "my body..." is to completely ignore what is pregnancy. Becomes a Kate McKinnon... 'just do your nine' caricature. Being pregnant is so much more than just "my body...", it becomes their whole existence for several months (ignoring TYPICAL post pregnancy health issues). What they eat/drink, how they sleep, general comfort, clothes, doctors appointments, fatigue. There is no aspect of a pregnant woman's life that isn't impacted by the pregnancy. So handwaving away "my body..." is a shit kind of thing to do. Because "my body..." isn't just their body, it is "their life".

this is obviously a fish-in-a-barrel situation here and i'm not the first person to point this out, but the fact that so many anti-abortion regressives started using the 'my body, my choice' argument as a way to push back against getting vaccinated just blows my god damn mind.

 

[SIB]

The only two arguments I don't accept are "God said so" and "Its my body my choice."

What other choices regarding a woman's body do you reserve oversight on? It isn't simply an issue of 'it is happening inside them', it is an issue of 'long after the baby has been born, the consequences of the pregnancy to their body will continue for varying periods of time for varying issues (physical and mental)'.

Its inside her body, but its not her body. The body goes to great lengths to keep the mothers body from "eating" the baby's body (possible baby's body).

I am talking about the Mother's body. That is what takes the physical and mental and psychological toll of pregnancy and birth.

Yuppers, and thats at the heart of it.

You changed it to focus on two separate "bodies". Which, as a point of fact, I did. So the question then becomes when does the mother's choice to do what they want get over ridden by the act of "murder". We know when it exits the mother can't just say "my body my choice". No matter what. we then circle back to the original "when is it human?"

Actually, the question is, when does the state have the right to intercede in the personal decisions a woman makes regarding her own body. The Government needs a warrant to draw blood from a pregnant woman... but now a Government can tell her to remain pregnant and give birth. This seems inconsistent. It has been a while since the rights of the unborn have superceded the rights of the living.

All I am really saying is just present the argument for/against without those two statements. Pro choice leaves out "My body my choice." and the pro lifers leave out "because god said so." I kind of think people doing that might actually make them think just a tad deeper.

Well, the reasonable compromise seemed to be when it was viable without exotic medical support. That seemed like a good meeting place. But this was never about the fetus for the right-wing.

Your first paragraph is mixing up ideas and really won't help close the gap in discourse. You focus on "They can't tell me what to do." and I am focusing on "when is it killing a human even if its inside you." "unborn definition" is the issue I guess. I also disagree with your right wing statement unless you include left wing are as stupid.

Yes, two rational people on both sides of the argument can settler in the middle. I say "rational" meaning both sides understand that they have to remove their emotion from the argument to a degree and just look at it objectively. That's why I try and ask people to remove "god said so" and "My body my choice".

There are rational right wingers. Despite what the left says.

Let me reword it to include both mother and fetus.

When can somebody else tell a parent they can't kill their child? No matter where it is?

You ended in what I think. Somewhere between conception and we could remove it and it live on its own. I would lean towards the conception side. A safety factor if you will.

 

[Elixir]

You don't use either of them in ways that reflect the precision you have assigned to those words but instead to invoke emotion.

I think it’s an attempt to avoid confronting the superstitious/religious origins of an overweening emotional impulse. There is certainly no objective, logical reason to take an interest in other people’s bodily functions, or to consider a non-sentient blob of protoplasm a “person”.

 

[TomC]

this is obviously a fish-in-a-barrel situation here and i'm not the first person to point this out, but the fact that so many anti-abortion regressives started using the 'my body, my choice' argument as a way to push back against vaccinated just blows my god damn mind.

Similarly, lots of feticide rights advocates dumped the "my body, my choice" argument when anti-vaxxers started making it.
Tom

 

[prideandfall]

this is obviously a fish-in-a-barrel situation here and i'm not the first person to point this out, but the fact that so many anti-abortion regressives started using the 'my body, my choice' argument as a way to push back against vaccinated just blows my god damn mind.

Similarly, lots of feticide rights advocates dumped the "my body, my choice" argument when anti-vaxxers started making it.
Tom

well yes, because it doesn't make any sense coming from anti-vaxxers, because it's not effecting only their body.
their choice has measurable and demonstrable harm to other people that is easy to categorize and point to, not only in this specific instance but in past instances as well.

to be consistent, you'd need to show that abortion has wide-reaching and long lasting negative physical consequences for other people who aren't the pregnant woman.
the only way you can do that is to figure out a way to define how a zygote is "people", and you have repeatedly and consistently proven that you are utterly incapable of doing that.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The only two arguments I don't accept are "God said so" and "Its my body my choice."

What other choices regarding a woman's body do you reserve oversight on? It isn't simply an issue of 'it is happening inside them', it is an issue of 'long after the baby has been born, the consequences of the pregnancy to their body will continue for varying periods of time for varying issues (physical and mental)'.

Its inside her body, but its not her body. The body goes to great lengths to keep the mothers body from "eating" the baby's body (possible baby's body).

I am talking about the Mother's body. That is what takes the physical and mental and psychological toll of pregnancy and birth.

Yuppers, and thats at the heart of it.

You changed it to focus on two separate "bodies". Which, as a point of fact, I did. So the question then becomes when does the mother's choice to do what they want get over ridden by the act of "murder". We know when it exits the mother can't just say "my body my choice". No matter what. we then circle back to the original "when is it human?"

Actually, the question is, when does the state have the right to intercede in the personal decisions a woman makes regarding her own body. The Government needs a warrant to draw blood from a pregnant woman... but now a Government can tell her to remain pregnant and give birth. This seems inconsistent. It has been a while since the rights of the unborn have superceded the rights of the living.

All I am really saying is just present the argument for/against without those two statements. Pro choice leaves out "My body my choice." and the pro lifers leave out "because god said so." I kind of think people doing that might actually make them think just a tad deeper.

Well, the reasonable compromise seemed to be when it was viable without exotic medical support. That seemed like a good meeting place. But this was never about the fetus for the right-wing.

Your first paragraph is mixing up ideas and really won't help close the gap in discourse. You focus on "They can't tell me what to do." and I am focusing on "when is it killing a human even if its inside you." "unborn definition" is the issue I guess. I also disagree with your right wing statement unless you include left wing are as stupid.

Yes, two rational people on both sides of the argument can settler in the middle. I say "rational" meaning both sides understand that they have to remove their emotion from the argument to a degree and just look at it objectively. That's why I try and ask people to remove "god said so" and "My body my choice".

There are rational right wingers. Despite what the left says.

Let me reword it to include both mother and fetus.

When can somebody else tell a parent they can't kill their child? No matter where it is?

Well, if by "child", you mean something that isn't remotely a "child", it is an intellectually unsound question.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

this is obviously a fish-in-a-barrel situation here and i'm not the first person to point this out, but the fact that so many anti-abortion regressives started using the 'my body, my choice' argument as a way to push back against vaccinated just blows my god damn mind.

Similarly, lots of feticide rights advocates dumped the "my body, my choice" argument when anti-vaxxers started making it.

You need to remember that many "feticide rights" people are pro-life, and believe that vaccination for diseases improves the community in whole by greatly reducing disease in that community, especially relative to the negligible cost of vaccination to the vaccinated.

Vaccination and pregnancy aren't particularly comparative, as the toll of getting vaccinated is generally nothing, where as the toll of pregnancy and birth is substantial (some permanent). This indeed seems like another one of those Moore-Coulter things... where the right-wing rails against vaccination and imagined dangers (onto themselves) but have no problem forcing women to endure stolen liberty, pregnancy, and birth.

 

[SIB]

The only two arguments I don't accept are "God said so" and "Its my body my choice."

What other choices regarding a woman's body do you reserve oversight on? It isn't simply an issue of 'it is happening inside them', it is an issue of 'long after the baby has been born, the consequences of the pregnancy to their body will continue for varying periods of time for varying issues (physical and mental)'.

Its inside her body, but its not her body. The body goes to great lengths to keep the mothers body from "eating" the baby's body (possible baby's body).

I am talking about the Mother's body. That is what takes the physical and mental and psychological toll of pregnancy and birth.

Yuppers, and thats at the heart of it.

You changed it to focus on two separate "bodies". Which, as a point of fact, I did. So the question then becomes when does the mother's choice to do what they want get over ridden by the act of "murder". We know when it exits the mother can't just say "my body my choice". No matter what. we then circle back to the original "when is it human?"

Actually, the question is, when does the state have the right to intercede in the personal decisions a woman makes regarding her own body. The Government needs a warrant to draw blood from a pregnant woman... but now a Government can tell her to remain pregnant and give birth. This seems inconsistent. It has been a while since the rights of the unborn have superceded the rights of the living.

All I am really saying is just present the argument for/against without those two statements. Pro choice leaves out "My body my choice." and the pro lifers leave out "because god said so." I kind of think people doing that might actually make them think just a tad deeper.

Well, the reasonable compromise seemed to be when it was viable without exotic medical support. That seemed like a good meeting place. But this was never about the fetus for the right-wing.

Your first paragraph is mixing up ideas and really won't help close the gap in discourse. You focus on "They can't tell me what to do." and I am focusing on "when is it killing a human even if its inside you." "unborn definition" is the issue I guess. I also disagree with your right wing statement unless you include left wing are as stupid.

Yes, two rational people on both sides of the argument can settler in the middle. I say "rational" meaning both sides understand that they have to remove their emotion from the argument to a degree and just look at it objectively. That's why I try and ask people to remove "god said so" and "My body my choice".

There are rational right wingers. Despite what the left says.

Let me reword it to include both mother and fetus.

When can somebody else tell a parent they can't kill their child? No matter where it is?

Well, if by "child", you mean something that isn't remotely a "child", it is an intellectually unsound question.

Lets keep it in the context of your "when do the unborn over ride the living."

when is it ok for somebody else to tell you what you can and can't do?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, if by "child", you mean something that isn't remotely a "child", it is an intellectually unsound question.

Lets keep it in the context of your "when do the unborn over ride the living."

when is it ok for somebody else to tell you what you can and can't do?

What is this, a game of questions? Your attempted parallel is not viable here because it already presumes two alive parties.

 

[Elixir]

No matter what. we then circle back to the original "when is it human?"

No. My fingernail is “human”.
The question is when is it a human.
My answer is “as soon as it is no longer part of its mother’s body”, I. E. At birth

 

[Jarhyn]

No matter what. we then circle back to the original "when is it human?"

No. My fingernail is “human”.
The question is when is it a human.
My answer is “as soon as it is no longer part of its mother’s body”, I. E. At birth

I would say "as soon as it doesn't have to be a part of a parent's body". Before that point it's more of a strategically formed tumor.

 

[SIB]

Well, if by "child", you mean something that isn't remotely a "child", it is an intellectually unsound question.

Lets keep it in the context of your "when do the unborn over ride the living."

when is it ok for somebody else to tell you what you can and can't do?

What is this, a game of questions? Your attempted parallel is not viable here because it already presumes two alive parties.

no game, its about unpacking what people are saying. From all angles.

I said I think if we leave out "my body my choice" and/or "god said so" in abortion discussions we can come up with a more reliable position more often than not.

You posted something about unborn overriding the living among other things related to women's rights. But I am only talking about in abortion discussions.

So the question is simple, in the context of abortion, when does the rights of the unborn supersede the women's (or parents of the unborn) rights to do what they want? or more simply, are there times when the unborn have rights that supersede the "women's right" to choose.

 

[SIB]

No matter what. we then circle back to the original "when is it human?"

No. My fingernail is “human”.
The question is when is it a human.
My answer is “as soon as it is no longer part of its mother’s body”, I. E. At birth

Yeah, I am sorry. I don't do word play. I mean I will gladly clarify what I mean if I am unclear.

Try this on for size ... Your finger nail aint even alive.

 

[Elixir]

Your finger nail aint even alive.

No? Why not? Don’t like it? Then try the skin cells I scrubbed off in the shower this morning. They were alive, at least until I scrubbed them off my body and may still be alive somewhere between my house and the septic tank. True, they stand little chance of turning into a person, and neither does a blastocyst that isn’t part of a woman’s body. Both contain all the genetic information of a human being, and given the right environment could be caused to develop into a human being.

No word games. You are simply unwilling to indulge in logic, as it eviscerates your (unstated) case.

 

[SIB]

Then try the skin cells I scrubbed off in the shower this morning. They were alive until I scrubbed them off my body. True, they stand little chance of turning into a person, and neither does a blastocyst that isn’t part of a woman’s body. And both contain all the genetic information of a human being.
No word games, unless you are simply unwilling to indulge in logic to bolster your (unstated) case.

lol ... sure thing.

You can stick with your "a human" and I will just use my statement without the "a" in "We circler back to the original argument of when is it human". Maybe look at why the letter missing triggered you. Then cause you try and attack over something so meaningless to the average person. Ahhh forget it, its the net. In person I laugh at "You mean a human" and we move on.

Other that you will need to show the logic that leaving out the phrases "My body my choice" and "god said so" in describing why we are for/against abortion tends to leave us with more reliable stances, wait a sec, you never said where it flawed did you?

do you agree or not?

 

[Toni]

Well, if by "child", you mean something that isn't remotely a "child", it is an intellectually unsound question.

Lets keep it in the context of your "when do the unborn over ride the living."

when is it ok for somebody else to tell you what you can and can't do?

What is this, a game of questions? Your attempted parallel is not viable here because it already presumes two alive parties.

no game, its about unpacking what people are saying. From all angles.

I said I think if we leave out "my body my choice" and/or "god said so" in abortion discussions we can come up with a more reliable position more often than not.

You posted something about unborn overriding the living among other things related to women's rights. But I am only talking about in abortion discussions.

So the question is simple, in the context of abortion, when does the rights of the unborn supersede the women's (or parents of the unborn) rights to do what they want? or more simply, are there times when the unborn have rights that supersede the "women's right" to choose.

I don’t think that the rights of an embryo or a fetus ever supersede the rights of the woman carrying the embro or fetus. Ever.

But as you posed your question: I don’t believe that anyone, including the state, has the right to compel a person to make the medical decisions another person or the state wishes to be made.

An exception would be in the case of a child or a mentally incompetent person. Even then, good faith efforts should be made to honor the wishes of the person deemed not competent to make medical decisions for themselves

 

[Toni]

No matter what. we then circle back to the original "when is it human?"

No. My fingernail is “human”.
The question is when is it a human.
My answer is “as soon as it is no longer part of its mother’s body”, I. E. At birth

Yeah, I am sorry. I don't do word play. I mean I will gladly clarify what I mean if I am unclear.

Try this on for size ... Your finger nail aint even alive.

Fingernails are alive. The part you can see is composed of dead cells but the nail bed is living tissue.