Roe v Wade is on deck

[Harry Bosch]

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

Sorry Beave, but I think this is also a silly argument. I'm against the draft in most cases. But when the draft has been implemented, the government believed that the nation was in imminent danger. The Nazis were going to take over the world. Once the Nazi threat was neutralized (and after the Vietnam war was over); the draft went away. Are you seriously trying to argue that there is an emergency lack of babies in the world? We produce far more babies that we can take care of. How many anti-abortion rights people spend time in the adoption/foster care world?

 

[thebeave]

You're missing my point. I'm in 100% agreement with you on the draft. I don't really like it, but I think it is a "necessary evil" for the survival of this country, and I'm not pushing for the idea of eliminating it. Nor am I against abortion. I am staunchly pro-choice (up to the point of viability of the fetus outside the womb, anyway). Re-read what I bolded. I was merely questioning Rhea's claim, and countering it with an example (the military draft):

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.

 

[Harry Bosch]

You're missing my point. I'm in 100% agreement with you on the draft. I don't really like it, but I think it is a "necessary evil" for the survival of this country, and I'm not pushing for the idea of eliminating it. Nor am I against abortion. I am staunchly pro-choice (up to the point of viability of the fetus outside the womb, anyway). Re-read what I bolded. I was merely questioning Rhea's claim, and countering it with an example (the military draft):

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.

I'm sorry. Yes, I read your post and made hasty assumptions. There's few issues that get me as riled up as abortion rights. Maybe because my wife and I spend a lot of time in the adoption/foster care world. And again, it's rare to see anti-abortion people helping kids in need. They seem to want more babies, but don't want to step out and help/support when kids are in need.

 

[Toni]

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.

There is no such thing as the abortion of an 8 month old fetus. That's an ugly lie told by anti-abortionists.

Very, very few women abort late in the pregnancy. In fact, abortions after 21 weeks account for only 1.3 percent of all abortions and are almost exclusively because of very serious fetal abnormalities (incompatible with life) or the health of the mother. A woman seeking an abortion at or after 24 weeks is generally turned away. In rare instances, an abortion is performed at 24 weeks because of serious fetal abnormalities. Why so late? Delays can happen while waiting for the results of tests to come back. Some doctors deliberately mislead women about fetal development to try to prevent them from seeking an abortion. Sometimes, women know their pregnancy cannot survive and try to hang on to the due date and simply cannot.

In cases where a pregnancy must be concluded after 24 weeks, a cesarean section is performed or labor is induced. This is done almost always to save the life of the mother.

Virtually every late term pregnancy that is terminated is a pregnancy very much wanted by the mother.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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".

Her own actions? The abortion measures the right is after do not exempt rape.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Late abortions are almost inevitably because something went wrong.

And when they aren't it's almost certainly because the Republicans put so many hurdles in the way that it took that long to overcome them.

No woman would choose to abort later rather than earlier. Virtually all voluntary abortions will be early. The only time you would expect to see a voluntary late abortion is when she didn't realize she was pregnant.

Note that there is a misunderstanding due to translation that confuses people: The word "elective" in doctor-speak is different than in common usage. In medical usage it covers situations where you can choose when. Suppose a woman has a molar pregnancy--there are only two possible outcomes, surgical removal or death. However, they're not going to wheel you into the OR the instant they diagnose a molar pregnancy. The surgery can be scheduled--it's elective.

Or a relative of ours, 5 months pregnant. You need drug X or you're likely to go blind. X fucks up the fetus. Take the drug, schedule the abortion. Elective.

 

[Gospel]

Sorry, everyone. I was pissed because I, a person who supported his sister throughout her whole abortion process was accused of thinking that I owned her body. It just really got under my skin. I didn't mean the whole "fuck all yall" thing (unless you're hella attractive and heterosexual, if that's the case hit me up in my DM's). Seriously, I'm better now, and sorry.

 

[Jarhyn]

Sorry, everyone. I was pissed because I, a person who supported his sister throughout her whole abortion process was accused of thinking that I owned her body. It just really got under my skin. I didn't mean the whole "fuck all yall" thing (unless you're hella attractive and heterosexual, if that's the case hit me up in my DM's). Seriously, I'm better now, and sorry.

Welcome back. I like you and am really glad you came back.

 

[Toni]

Sorry, everyone. I was pissed because I, a person who supported his sister throughout her whole abortion process was accused of thinking that I owned her body. It just really got under my skin. I didn't mean the whole "fuck all yall" thing (unless you're hella attractive and heterosexual, if that's the case hit me up in my DM's). Seriously, I'm better now, and sorry.

Welcome back. I like you and am really glad you came back.

Me, too. Glad to see you back here.

 

[Rhea]

Sorry, everyone. I was pissed because I, a person who supported his sister throughout her whole abortion process was accused of thinking that I owned her body. It just really got under my skin. I didn't mean the whole "fuck all yall" thing (unless you're hella attractive and heterosexual, if that's the case hit me up in my DM's). Seriously, I'm better now, and sorry.

Very glad you’re back. I value your contributions to the forum.

 

[Derec]

Late abortions are almost inevitably because something went wrong.

And I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is the abortion absolutism that says "abortions at any time for any reason because organs".

And when they aren't it's almost certainly because the Republicans put so many hurdles in the way that it took that long to overcome them.

The word "elective" in doctor-speak is different than in common usage. In medical usage it covers situations where you can choose when.

Ok, so what would be a better word? Maybe "birth control abortion", i.e. abortion for no other reason than that a woman doesn't want to be preggers any more.
And I do not think those should be allowed throughout the pregnancy.

Suppose a woman has a molar pregnancy--there are only two possible outcomes, surgical removal or death.

What's a molar pregnancy? 6.022E23 fetuses?

 

[Toni]

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.

As I've stated in other similar threads, I oppose the draft.

 

[Toni]

And I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is the abortion absolutism that says "abortions at any time for any reason because organs".

And when they aren't it's almost certainly because the Republicans put so many hurdles in the way that it took that long to overcome them.

Not certain if the bolded sentence is one that you meant to include or it just got there through a cut/paste/quote type error.

Women do not always know immediately if they are pregnant. Not every woman misses her period during the beginning of a pregnancy. She may have some bleeding that seems to be her period for the first month or two or even throughout her pregnancy. This can cause a delay in recognizing that you are pregnant. That's an issue.

Other issues that cause delay in obtaining an abortion are being unable to find a clinic to perform the procedure, being unable to travel whatever distance that might be to get to the clinic, being forced to stay overnight or longer in order to obtain an abortion, forced waiting periods, being forced to undergo unnecessary ultrasounds, etc. that cause delays in being able to get an abortion. All of those factors also drive up the cost, placing abortion out of reach for many women or causing them to be forced to delay while they try to raise funds to pay for the abortion. THOSE are types of unnecessary delays due to laws enacted by legislators who are usually Republican.

So far, I have not encountered anyone or any place that will provide abortion 'for any reason at any time.' As I stated above, women seeking abortions past the viability stage are turned away unless there is a medical reason for the abortion. There is no such thing as an abortion at 8 months or other nonsense fiction. Yes, babies are sometimes delivered early for medical reasons--or because the woman goes into pre-term labor that cannot be stopped.

As for a woman having to have a sufficiently good enough reason to get an abortion--I don't see how that's up to anyone but her to determine if her reason is sufficient and not trivial.

Ok, so what would be a better word? Maybe "birth control abortion", i.e. abortion for no other reason than that a woman doesn't want to be preggers any more.
And I do not think those should be allowed throughout the pregnancy.

No. You've been informed what the term 'elective' means with regards to abortion. It also applies to cesarean births that are not emergency c-sections because the need for a c-section is known in advance due to some known medical reason: previous c-sections or issues in a previous child birth, some medical conditions, needing to deliver a baby early because the mother has pre-eclampsia, etc.

Suppose a woman has a molar pregnancy--there are only two possible outcomes, surgical removal or death.

What's a molar pregnancy? 6.022E23 fetuses?

Google broken at your house?
https://americanpregnancy.org/healt...regnancy is an,out of every 1,000 pregnancies.

Also ectopic pregnancies: https://www.webmd.com/baby/pregnancy-ectopic-pregnancy#1

Sometimes, a fetus has known abnormalities that mean that it cannot survive outside of the womb. Anencephaly is one such condition but there are others. It is worth noting that continuing a pregnancy always increases risks to the mother.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is the abortion absolutism that says "abortions at any time for any reason because organs".

And when they aren't it's almost certainly because the Republicans put so many hurdles in the way that it took that long to overcome them.


Ok, so what would be a better word? Maybe "birth control abortion", i.e. abortion for no other reason than that a woman doesn't want to be preggers any more.
And I do not think those should be allowed throughout the pregnancy.

The thing is you're attacking a strawman. Quit putting restrictions on abortion and there would be almost no contraception-failure abortions after the first trimester. It's a non-issue.

Suppose a woman has a molar pregnancy--there are only two possible outcomes, surgical removal or death.

What's a molar pregnancy? 6.022E23 fetuses?

I forget exactly what it is in a biological sense. It's a mass of tissue that grows but doesn't form a coherent fetus (but it may contain coherent structures within it, such as teeth.) It's not controlled like a fetus--you cut it out or the out of control growth kills the woman.

And the word relates to "mole" as in what grows on your skin, not "mole" as in 6.022E23 molecules.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Google broken at your house?
https://americanpregnancy.org/healt...regnancy is an,out of every 1,000 pregnancies.

Learned something new--I didn't realize it could miscarry.

Also ectopic pregnancies: https://www.webmd.com/baby/pregnancy-ectopic-pregnancy#1

And the "Pro-Life" crowd is downright evil there.

Early enough you can do a chemical abortion. Wait and you have to cut it out--taking half the woman's fertility out in the process. Yet "Christian" hospitals will take the latter approach because it's not "performing an abortion". The evil of judging actions over consequences. Malpractice in my book.

 

[Toni]

Google broken at your house?
https://americanpregnancy.org/healt...regnancy is an,out of every 1,000 pregnancies.

Learned something new--I didn't realize it could miscarry.

Also ectopic pregnancies: https://www.webmd.com/baby/pregnancy-ectopic-pregnancy#1

And the "Pro-Life" crowd is downright evil there.

Early enough you can do a chemical abortion. Wait and you have to cut it out--taking half the woman's fertility out in the process. Yet "Christian" hospitals will take the latter approach because it's not "performing an abortion". The evil of judging actions over consequences. Malpractice in my book.

Assuming the other fallopian tube is healthy, the removal of the one damaged by an ectopic pregnancy is not thought to diminish a woman's fertility, I believe.

I had to change doctors for my last pregnancy because I wanted a tubal ligation. He had stopped going to any but the Catholic hospital where I would not be given that choice. But an additional pregnancy could have been risky for me and the fetus as well, so how's that for pro-life? I ended up liking my new ob much better anyway.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Surely the right is pro-choice? William Barr compared covid mask mandates to slavery. Taylor Greene compared them to the yellow star forced on the Jews. Your body!! Your choice!! Don't tread on me!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Learned something new--I didn't realize it could miscarry.



And the "Pro-Life" crowd is downright evil there.

Early enough you can do a chemical abortion. Wait and you have to cut it out--taking half the woman's fertility out in the process. Yet "Christian" hospitals will take the latter approach because it's not "performing an abortion". The evil of judging actions over consequences. Malpractice in my book.

Assuming the other fallopian tube is healthy, the removal of the one damaged by an ectopic pregnancy is not thought to diminish a woman's fertility, I believe.

I had to change doctors for my last pregnancy because I wanted a tubal ligation. He had stopped going to any but the Catholic hospital where I would not be given that choice. But an additional pregnancy could have been risky for me and the fetus as well, so how's that for pro-life? I ended up liking my new ob much better anyway.

Note your "assuming". It's like kidneys--you can live fine on one but you've reduced your margin of safety.

And with one fallopian tube gone a woman can only conceive every other month, not every month. Half her fertility.

 

[James Madison]

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.

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.


.

The above is what you said. Your “one of many” examples of “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” included examples of “ 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.”

Your “examples,” that I addressed, involved someone else losing a bodily organ to another person.

One word? It was two hoped for analogies, outcomes, that when taking your POV as a whole in the post, played a important roles.

That’s all you provided as examples of “using someone else’s organs” in the context of Roe and overturning Roe. If you meant more, then you should have included other examples, as opposed to leaving it to the reader to guess it and then blaming the reader when they guess incorrectly.

And the “organs operate for the sake of another being” isn’t persuasive anyway. Roe and its progeny wasn’t based on such a rationale.

 

[Harry Bosch]

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.


.

The above is what you said. Your “one of many” examples of “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” included examples of “ 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.”

Your “examples,” that I addressed, involved someone else losing a bodily organ to another person.

One word? It was two hoped for analogies, outcomes, that when taking your POV as a whole in the post, played a important roles.

That’s all you provided as examples of “using someone else’s organs” in the context of Roe and overturning Roe. If you meant more, then you should have included other examples, as opposed to leaving it to the reader to guess it and then blaming the reader when they guess incorrectly.

And the “organs operate for the sake of another being” isn’t persuasive anyway. Roe and its progeny wasn’t based on such a rationale.

James: I respect your opinion most of the time. You know far more about the law than I. However, how can you hold the position that having sovereign control of our own organs isn't important? My question: if Roe v Wade wasn't based on bodily rights; why does the protections for a woman considering an abortion mostly cease once the fetus is viable (ie can function on it's own without the mother)?