Roe v Wade is on deck

[James Madison]

Catholics are about 20% of the U.S. population. Our Supreme Court, which of course is ostensibly representative of the citizens, now has 6 practicing Catholics and a seventh (Gorsuch) who was raised Catholic but is now reportedly Episcopalian. Seven justices who grew up on the teaching that abortion is murder and is a deep moral stain on the republic. Any doubt that they could give full citizenship rights to the fetus?

It’s my opinion that if Roe v. Wade is weakened or overturned, stating that a woman’s body can be coerced to have her organs operate for the sake of another being, that it is now legal for ANY human to have the use of thier body coerced for any other human who needs it.

If someone needs a kidney, and Newt Gingrich s a match, he **MUST** donate his kidney.
If someone needs bone marrow to live and Marjorie Taylor Greene is a match, she MUST donate, whether the timing is conveninet or not, and as many times as is necessary.

It doesn’t matter if it leaves the donor in a compromised physical state, it does not matter if it will harm your career or your family, or your education. You MUST ALWAYS be a donor whenever another person’s life rides on your donation. Or you are charged with murder.

Of course, Roe v Wade can be “weakened” in a manner which doesn’t permit the potential mother to lose a body organ, or greatly risk doing so, and thereby, undermine your argument the government can mandate someone to give a body organ to save a life.

Reversing Roe, to say there isn’t a constitutional right to an abortion, doesn’t lead to your outcome. People would still have a constitutional right to generally prohibit the government from mandating organ donation to save another human life. Indeed, the Court can hold there isn’t a constitutional right to an abortion but also hold the State cannot, consistent with the Constitution, coerce women to risk loss of a bodily organ, their life, or irreparable outcomes to their health to preserve the fetus or zygote.

 

[Rhea]

It’s my opinion that if Roe v. Wade is weakened or overturned, stating that a woman’s body can be coerced to have her organs operate for the sake of another being, that it is now legal for ANY human to have the use of thier body coerced for any other human who needs it.

If someone needs a kidney, and Newt Gingrich s a match, he **MUST** donate his kidney.
If someone needs bone marrow to live and Marjorie Taylor Greene is a match, she MUST donate, whether the timing is conveninet or not, and as many times as is necessary.

It doesn’t matter if it leaves the donor in a compromised physical state, it does not matter if it will harm your career or your family, or your education. You MUST ALWAYS be a donor whenever another person’s life rides on your donation. Or you are charged with murder.

Of course, Roe v Wade can be “weakened” in a manner which doesn’t permit the potential mother to lose a body organ, or greatly risk doing so, and thereby, undermine your argument the government can mandate someone to give a body organ to save a life.

Reversing Roe, to say there isn’t a constitutional right to an abortion, doesn’t lead to your outcome. People would still have a constitutional right to generally prohibit the government from mandating organ donation to save another human life. Indeed, the Court can hold there isn’t a constitutional right to an abortion but also hold the State cannot, consistent with the Constitution, coerce women to risk loss of a bodily organ, their life, or irreparable outcomes to their health to preserve the fetus or zygote.

Can you please explain how you would expect a pregnancy to continue to term without the use of the woman’s organs?

If you want to mandate that another human can use my organs, that I should be able to mandate that another person can use yours.

Notice I said “operate my organs for the use of another” and you moved the goalpost to “lose a body organ.”

I said what I said.

 

[Rhea]

Of course, it is convenient to try to define it in such a way that it harms me but not you. Such as saying “lose an organ,” when the topic was clearly “use my organs,” and that is a typical legal parlor trick to define the law as something only women need to be held to.

But I’m clearly talking about using the organs. And so if I need to use your gut to grow a life-saving intestinal tract, I get to do that to you, right? You don’t “lose an organ.” And if I need to use your bone marrow to grow blood for NICU preeemies, then you have to let me do that. And if your liver is compatible with someone who needs one, you have to let me harvest slices off it. You’re not losing an organ, after all, right? And if I need to implant something under your skin to grow a needed set of cells for a person who would die without them, you are required to do it. Even if it takes you out of work, even if it interrupts your vacation plans, even if it makes you lose your job. Someone needs to use your organs to survive - and you are a murderer if you opt out.


Here’s the point again. In no case does the law allow another person to use your organs, even if they need to in order to stay alive, and even if you are the reason they need them. And being a women who has sex does not change that.

 

[James Madison]

It’s my opinion that if Roe v. Wade is weakened or overturned, stating that a woman’s body can be coerced to have her organs operate for the sake of another being, that it is now legal for ANY human to have the use of thier body coerced for any other human who needs it.

If someone needs a kidney, and Newt Gingrich s a match, he **MUST** donate his kidney.
If someone needs bone marrow to live and Marjorie Taylor Greene is a match, she MUST donate, whether the timing is conveninet or not, and as many times as is necessary.

It doesn’t matter if it leaves the donor in a compromised physical state, it does not matter if it will harm your career or your family, or your education. You MUST ALWAYS be a donor whenever another person’s life rides on your donation. Or you are charged with murder.

Yes. To me, abortion rights has always been about bodily control. A fetus demands a woman's resources. If a woman has no right to control these resources, then men shouldn't have the right to control their resources either. If I need your kidney to live, I should have it whether you agree or not.

The above would be a near ineluctable argument if Roe had permitted a woman to risk her organs for the fetus.

 

[untermensche]

The law could then say that a woman has the right to stop something from using her organs but no third party who's organs are not being used has the right to help her.

 

[James Madison]

It’s my opinion that if Roe v. Wade is weakened or overturned, stating that a woman’s body can be coerced to have her organs operate for the sake of another being, that it is now legal for ANY human to have the use of thier body coerced for any other human who needs it.

If someone needs a kidney, and Newt Gingrich s a match, he **MUST** donate his kidney.
If someone needs bone marrow to live and Marjorie Taylor Greene is a match, she MUST donate, whether the timing is conveninet or not, and as many times as is necessary.

It doesn’t matter if it leaves the donor in a compromised physical state, it does not matter if it will harm your career or your family, or your education. You MUST ALWAYS be a donor whenever another person’s life rides on your donation. Or you are charged with murder.

Of course, Roe v Wade can be “weakened” in a manner which doesn’t permit the potential mother to lose a body organ, or greatly risk doing so, and thereby, undermine your argument the government can mandate someone to give a body organ to save a life.

Reversing Roe, to say there isn’t a constitutional right to an abortion, doesn’t lead to your outcome. People would still have a constitutional right to generally prohibit the government from mandating organ donation to save another human life. Indeed, the Court can hold there isn’t a constitutional right to an abortion but also hold the State cannot, consistent with the Constitution, coerce women to risk loss of a bodily organ, their life, or irreparable outcomes to their health to preserve the fetus or zygote.

Can you please explain how you would expect a pregnancy to continue to term without the use of the woman’s organs?

If you want to mandate that another human can use my organs, that I should be able to mandate that another person can use yours.

Notice I said “operate my organs for the use of another” and you moved the goalpost to “lose a body organ.”

I said what I said.

No, those are your goalposts! You chose the analogy of someone else having to forfeit an organ for someone else’s life when discussing Roe, pregnancy, and abortion. But pregnancy doesn’t necessarily require a woman permanently lose her organs for the fetus or the zygote.

Furthermore, “operate your organs for the use of another” in the context of pregnancy is not to permanently lose them to someone else, like your kidney example of coerced donation to save someone else’s life.

Roe and its progeny prohibits the state from requiring women risk the loss of bodily organs for the life of the fetus.

 

[Rhea]

It’s my opinion that if Roe v. Wade is weakened or overturned, stating that a woman’s body can be coerced to have her organs operate for the sake of another being, that it is now legal for ANY human to have the use of thier body coerced for any other human who needs it.

If someone needs a kidney, and Newt Gingrich s a match, he **MUST** donate his kidney.
If someone needs bone marrow to live and Marjorie Taylor Greene is a match, she MUST donate, whether the timing is conveninet or not, and as many times as is necessary.

It doesn’t matter if it leaves the donor in a compromised physical state, it does not matter if it will harm your career or your family, or your education. You MUST ALWAYS be a donor whenever another person’s life rides on your donation. Or you are charged with murder.

Yes. To me, abortion rights has always been about bodily control. A fetus demands a woman's resources. If a woman has no right to control these resources, then men shouldn't have the right to control their resources either. If I need your kidney to live, I should have it whether you agree or not.

The above would be a near ineluctable argument if Roe had permitted a woman to risk her organs for the fetus.

Not risk.

Control.

Many of my organs were used by my fetuses. Several of them received permanent change.
No one can or should force me to undergo permanent bodily change for another.
No one can force you, either.
Many of my organs were simply used by another. No one can force you to use any part of your body for another.

You keep tring to move the goal posts and claim we are talking about the total loss of an organ.
That’s not what pregnancy is, and that’s not what it does.

No one can force you to breathe for them (mouth to mouth rescusitation). No one can force you to share your blood with them. No one can force you to eat and digest food for them. You cannot even be forced to carry another human down the street on your back, even if their life depends on you doing it.

No one can force you to use your body in any way on their behalf, It’s YOUR body, and you cannot be forced to use it on behalf of another.

 

[untermensche]

Pregnancy can cause gestational diabetes which definitely can harm organs, like your eyes and your kidneys.

 

[James Madison]

The above would be a near ineluctable argument if Roe had permitted a woman to risk her organs for the fetus.

Not risk.

Control.

Many of my organs were used by my fetuses. Several of them received permanent change.
No one can or should force me to undergo permanent bodily change for another.
No one can force you, either.


You keep tring to move the goal posts and claim we are talking about the total loss of an organ.
That’s not what pregnancy is, and that’s not what it does.

No one can force you to breathe for them. No one can force you to share your blood with them. No one can force you to eat and digest food for them. YOu cannot even be forced to carry another human down the street, even if their life depends on you doing it.

No one can force you to use your body in any way on their behalf, It’s YOUR body, and you cannot be forced to use it on behalf of another.

Excuse me? Who came up with the kidney donation for another person in the context of Roe, pregnancy, and abortion? You. Your analogy, your hypothetical, your example, your goal posts.

Your criticism of the possibility of reversing or weakening Roe was this analogy of forcing someone else to donate a kidney to another person. Roe and subsequent decisions protect the life and health of the mother such that the government cannot prohibit abortion in any trimester when the life of the woman is jeopardized or to risk the loss of a bodily organ or lose a bodily organ for the life of the fetus/zygote.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Pregnancy can cause gestational diabetes which definitely can harm organs, like your eyes and your kidneys.

A perfectly baseline pregnancy will change a woman forever.

 

[thebeave]

The above would be a near ineluctable argument if Roe had permitted a woman to risk her organs for the fetus.

Not risk.

Control.

Many of my organs were used by my fetuses. Several of them received permanent change.
No one can or should force me to undergo permanent bodily change for another.
No one can force you, either.
Many of my organs were simply used by another. No one can force you to use any part of your body for another.

You keep tring to move the goal posts and claim we are talking about the total loss of an organ.
That’s not what pregnancy is, and that’s not what it does.

No one can force you to breathe for them (mouth to mouth rescusitation). No one can force you to share your blood with them. No one can force you to eat and digest food for them. You cannot even be forced to carry another human down the street on your back, even if their life depends on you doing it.

No one can force you to use your body in any way on their behalf, It’s YOUR body, and you cannot be forced to use it on behalf of another.

Sure they can. Women are generally forbidden to abort late term, say 8 months. Sensible people agree that is the right thing to do, including most other women themselves.

The US Government can and has forced men in time of war to use their bodies as killing machines on their behalf, while putting their own lives at grave risk. Just ask these guys:

 

[Toni]

The above would be a near ineluctable argument if Roe had permitted a woman to risk her organs for the fetus.

Not risk.

Control.

Many of my organs were used by my fetuses. Several of them received permanent change.
No one can or should force me to undergo permanent bodily change for another.
No one can force you, either.
Many of my organs were simply used by another. No one can force you to use any part of your body for another.

You keep tring to move the goal posts and claim we are talking about the total loss of an organ.
That’s not what pregnancy is, and that’s not what it does.

No one can force you to breathe for them (mouth to mouth rescusitation). No one can force you to share your blood with them. No one can force you to eat and digest food for them. You cannot even be forced to carry another human down the street on your back, even if their life depends on you doing it.

No one can force you to use your body in any way on their behalf, It’s YOUR body, and you cannot be forced to use it on behalf of another.

Sure they can. Women are generally forbidden to abort late term, say 8 months. Sensible people agree that is the right thing to do, including most other women themselves.

The US Government can and has forced men in time of war to use their bodies as killing machines on their behalf, while putting their own lives at grave risk. Just ask these guys:

View attachment 33750

I don't know if you know this but: 1. There is no peacetime draft in the US. 2. Women have not been subjected to the draft because the US government, in its wisdom, has never been able to find sufficient positions in the military to accommodate the number of women who volunteer. Nonetheless, from the very beginning, women have served in combat, disguised as men when necessary. That is not necessary so much anymore. Today, women are deployed along with men. Of course, women have always been killed in war. And raped. So have children been. All non-combatants in a war zone are in danger of being killed by enemy (or friendly) fire, or just as collateral damage, or from disease and starvation as a result of war. Enlisted women died in the Viet Nam War and in every other war they were allowed to take part in and uninlisted women, in everywar you can name.

Currently, we have 9 women serving in the US Congress who are veterans of the military.

It is absurd to equate pregnancy with military service.

 

[Derec]

Here’s the point again. In no case does the law allow another person to use your organs, even if they need to in order to stay alive, and even if you are the reason they need them. And being a women who has sex does not change that.

The difference being that it is the woman's own actions that caused another human being to require her organs to survive. So it is a bit different than an unrelated person.

Your abortion absolutist stance is as extreme and ridiculous as "full personhood for zygotes".

 

[Toni]

The above would be a near ineluctable argument if Roe had permitted a woman to risk her organs for the fetus.

Not risk.

Control.

Many of my organs were used by my fetuses. Several of them received permanent change.
No one can or should force me to undergo permanent bodily change for another.
No one can force you, either.
Many of my organs were simply used by another. No one can force you to use any part of your body for another.

You keep tring to move the goal posts and claim we are talking about the total loss of an organ.
That’s not what pregnancy is, and that’s not what it does.

No one can force you to breathe for them (mouth to mouth rescusitation). No one can force you to share your blood with them. No one can force you to eat and digest food for them. You cannot even be forced to carry another human down the street on your back, even if their life depends on you doing it.

No one can force you to use your body in any way on their behalf, It’s YOUR body, and you cannot be forced to use it on behalf of another.

Sure they can. Women are generally forbidden to abort late term, say 8 months. Sensible people agree that is the right thing to do, including most other women themselves.

The US Government can and has forced men in time of war to use their bodies as killing machines on their behalf, while putting their own lives at grave risk. Just ask these guys:

View attachment 33750

That wall contains the names of women as well as men who served and died.

 

[Toni]

Here’s the point again. In no case does the law allow another person to use your organs, even if they need to in order to stay alive, and even if you are the reason they need them. And being a women who has sex does not change that.

The difference being that it is the woman's own actions that caused another human being to require her organs to survive. So it is a bit different than an unrelated person.

Your abortion absolutist stance is as extreme and ridiculous as "full personhood for zygotes".

It is not necessarily true that a 'woman's own actions' caused another human being to require her organs to survive. It was not her actions alone, and in fact, it was not necessary for her to be a willing participant in order for her to become pregnant.

 

[Derec]

That wall contains the names of women as well as men who served and died.

But only men can be drafted. In fact, every man has to register for draft (euphemistically called "selective service") when he turns 18.

 

[Derec]

It is not necessarily true that a 'woman's own actions' caused another human being to require her organs to survive. It was not her actions alone, and in fact, it was not necessary for her to be a willing participant in order for her to become pregnant.

I never said it was her actions alone. But the fact remains that in almost all cases it was the woman's actions (not solely, but that's not the point) that led to the state of affairs where one human being is requiring the body of another to stay alive.
Even if the pregnancy was the result of rape, a woman had many weeks to abort early but chose not to. So why should it be legal for her to abort late in pregnancy, because the argument pushed by Rhea is used to justify elective late-term abortions, not early ones.

I do not think the pro-choice movement is doing their cause any favors by out-nutjobbing the "from the moment of conception" pro-life nutjobs.

 

[Rhea]

Excuse me? Who came up with the kidney donation for another person in the context of Roe, pregnancy, and abortion? You. Your analogy, your hypothetical, your example, your goal posts.

Your criticism of the possibility of reversing or weakening Roe was this analogy of forcing someone else to donate a kidney to another person. Roe and subsequent decisions protect the life and health of the mother such that the government cannot prohibit abortion in any trimester when the life of the woman is jeopardized or to risk the loss of a bodily organ or lose a bodily organ for the life of the fetus/zygote.

I listed that as one of many. And I explicitly said use of organs as part. And I explicitly included when you are the cause of them needing your organ.

Sigh. Not surprised. Pick one word that you can argue, miss the whole message.



My point remains.

 

[laughing dog]

The attack on Roe v Wade is not going away. There is little common ground between the two sides. I doubt that will change over the next couple of generations at the least.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Here’s the point again. In no case does the law allow another person to use your organs, even if they need to in order to stay alive, and even if you are the reason they need them. And being a women who has sex does not change that.

The difference being that it is the woman's own actions that caused another human being to require her organs to survive. So it is a bit different than an unrelated person.

Your abortion absolutist stance is as extreme and ridiculous as "full personhood for zygotes".

This is a pretty silly argument. Some women are raped against their will - this isn't an action that they "caused". Secondly, and this may come as a shock to some, sometimes people have sex for fun and not the purpose of having a baby. But accidents happen. The issue is bodily control. A woman should not be forced to allow another to share her resources. Just the same as you or I should not be forced to give up a kidney to save a person's life.