Roe v Wade is on deck

[Toni]

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.

No, I consulted medical opinion.

 

[Toni]

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.

People who want Roe V Wade to remain untouched do not necessarily limit themselves to wanting Roe V Wade as law of the land because of the issues contained within. There is other rationale. For (many) women, it does indeed boil down to whether or not they can be coerced into effectively allowing the use of their body to benefit some other (potential) person without their consent. Breaking it down to being forced to donate organs is, in part, an attempt to get those (men) opposed to abortion to develop some empathy. I would wager almost no person would want to be told that they have been designated the organ donor for some individual, much less if that donation came with mandated medical appointments, mandated diet and mandated abstinence with respect to alcohol and most drugs, including over the counter drugs. I would wager that virtually all people would vehemently object even if they were only being asked to donate a single lobe of their liver, which would regenerate inside their body.

 

[Jarhyn]

Edit2: And I do not mean to accuse all women of using it at leisure.

I could be mistaken, but I feel confident that no woman has ever had an abortion performed for leisurely purposes.

Now if you meant as a form of birth control, it is quite possibly one of the more expensive, invasive, and risky forms of birth control out there. So, almost all women wouldn't do that either.

The actual question to ask is "Where are we supposed to draw the line between the legal weight of your opinion of what another woman is allowed to do with her body?" Is it abortion, birth control, intercourse, sex education?

I've seen enough abjectly terrible, sociopathic, and otherwise repugnant people to know that there are most assuredly SOME in this world who that phrase would describe. Thankfully there are few such people in the world.

I reserve my judgement specificallu to those that I believe have earned it. I do not assume there are many or that they are cause to prevent normal women from seeking services they have done all due diligence and consideration, and any censure possible for such sociopathy is exceedingly rare, and so not worth the undue burden it would impose on non-sociopaths, very much like voter laws.

I don't hate sociopaths so much that I would hurt every other women just for their sake.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

People who want Roe V Wade to remain untouched do not necessarily limit themselves to wanting Roe V Wade as law of the land because of the issues contained within. There is other rationale. For (many) women, it does indeed boil down to whether or not they can be coerced into effectively allowing the use of their body to benefit some other (potential) person without their consent. Breaking it down to being forced to donate organs is, in part, an attempt to get those (men) opposed to abortion to develop some empathy. I would wager almost no person would want to be told that they have been designated the organ donor for some individual, much less if that donation came with mandated medical appointments, mandated diet and mandated abstinence with respect to alcohol and most drugs, including over the counter drugs. I would wager that virtually all people would vehemently object even if they were only being asked to donate a single lobe of their liver, which would regenerate inside their body.

I'm just going to point out right here that this is a textbook example of the sort of exchange I most despise, and which drives my respect for certain people to new lows.

We have here an example of an argument where one person does not accept the point of view of another. Now, I personally come here so I can learn and grow, think freely, be rational.

Now, we have an argument here where one person criticises an argument and tells someone "what they should have done". This isn't about fucking rhetoric and who gets social points. This is for discussing whether abortion is to be considered a right and why. For that reason each of us has an obligation to stick our minds DEEP into empathy with the people who believe dissimilarly from us, to accept NEW rationales for discussion, and to try to be as chaeitable as possible to others.

For a lot of us on the left, that's not a hard exercise; many of us now for a women's right to choose came from more conservative backgrounds.

What should have happened is Madison doing his best to consider that argument from the strongest possible position, perhaps look at the constitution and see if it might actually support such a "new" right, or attempt to understand the mental linkage between privacy concerns acknowledged in Roe and how "private" is more than about what other people know, and extends into those decisions which persons have the private right to make without accepting public censure. Or in other words, this is "lawful shitty" or even "laewful obtuse" in character of post.

But in reality part of medical privacy and security is of life/liberty; undue search and siezure; etc. Many additional arguments FOR abortion are both compelling and so perfrctly valid. I would indeed fight to my own death and then immolate or poison my body to despoil it before I would let someone else force me to donate some part of my time or body to another against my consent
Oft. Course my violence would be directed at others long before it turned inward as last resort, though I doubt I am alone. So it must be acknowledged that it is a rather important right to enshrine to be free of such impositions, lest society have many such prospective body slaves taking things into their own hands and rebelling. Fortunately we also have some constitutional protections against slavery as well.

Needless to say, if anyone has a problem with that, I can go sharpen my sword.

 

[James Madison]

People who want Roe V Wade to remain untouched do not necessarily limit themselves to wanting Roe V Wade as law of the land because of the issues contained within. There is other rationale. For (many) women, it does indeed boil down to whether or not they can be coerced into effectively allowing the use of their body to benefit some other (potential) person without their consent. Breaking it down to being forced to donate organs is, in part, an attempt to get those (men) opposed to abortion to develop some empathy. I would wager almost no person would want to be told that they have been designated the organ donor for some individual, much less if that donation came with mandated medical appointments, mandated diet and mandated abstinence with respect to alcohol and most drugs, including over the counter drugs. I would wager that virtually all people would vehemently object even if they were only being asked to donate a single lobe of their liver, which would regenerate inside their body.

I'm just going to point out right here that this is a textbook example of the sort of exchange I most despise, and which drives my respect for certain people to new lows.

We have here an example of an argument where one person does not accept the point of view of another. Now, I personally come here so I can learn and grow, think freely, be rational.

Now, we have an argument here where one person criticises an argument and tells someone "what they should have done". This isn't about fucking rhetoric and who gets social points. This is for discussing whether abortion is to be considered a right and why. For that reason each of us has an obligation to stick our minds DEEP into empathy with the people who believe dissimilarly from us, to accept NEW rationales for discussion, and to try to be as chaeitable as possible to others.

For a lot of us on the left, that's not a hard exercise; many of us now for a women's right to choose came from more conservative backgrounds.

What should have happened is Madison doing his best to consider that argument from the strongest possible position, perhaps look at the constitution and see if it might actually support such a "new" right, or attempt to understand the mental linkage between privacy concerns acknowledged in Roe and how "private" is more than about what other people know, and extends into those decisions which persons have the private right to make without accepting public censure. Or in other words, this is "lawful shitty" or even "laewful obtuse" in character of post.

But in reality part of medical privacy and security is of life/liberty; undue search and siezure; etc. Many additional arguments FOR abortion are both compelling and so perfrctly valid. I would indeed fight to my own death and then immolate or poison my body to despoil it before I would let someone else force me to donate some part of my time or body to another against my consent
Oft. Course my violence would be directed at others long before it turned inward as last resort, though I doubt I am alone. So it must be acknowledged that it is a rather important right to enshrine to be free of such impositions, lest society have many such prospective body slaves taking things into their own hands and rebelling. Fortunately we also have some constitutional protections against slavery as well.

Needless to say, if anyone has a problem with that, I can go sharpen my sword.

“Sharpen your sword” with something other than your diatribe and soapbox about me personally. Let’s start there. That would make sense. Capable of doing that or do you want to bitch more about me and think you’ve said something intelligent?

 

[Jarhyn]

People who want Roe V Wade to remain untouched do not necessarily limit themselves to wanting Roe V Wade as law of the land because of the issues contained within. There is other rationale. For (many) women, it does indeed boil down to whether or not they can be coerced into effectively allowing the use of their body to benefit some other (potential) person without their consent. Breaking it down to being forced to donate organs is, in part, an attempt to get those (men) opposed to abortion to develop some empathy. I would wager almost no person would want to be told that they have been designated the organ donor for some individual, much less if that donation came with mandated medical appointments, mandated diet and mandated abstinence with respect to alcohol and most drugs, including over the counter drugs. I would wager that virtually all people would vehemently object even if they were only being asked to donate a single lobe of their liver, which would regenerate inside their body.

I'm just going to point out right here that this is a textbook example of the sort of exchange I most despise, and which drives my respect for certain people to new lows.

We have here an example of an argument where one person does not accept the point of view of another. Now, I personally come here so I can learn and grow, think freely, be rational.

Now, we have an argument here where one person criticises an argument and tells someone "what they should have done". This isn't about fucking rhetoric and who gets social points. This is for discussing whether abortion is to be considered a right and why. For that reason each of us has an obligation to stick our minds DEEP into empathy with the people who believe dissimilarly from us, to accept NEW rationales for discussion, and to try to be as chaeitable as possible to others.

For a lot of us on the left, that's not a hard exercise; many of us now for a women's right to choose came from more conservative backgrounds.

What should have happened is Madison doing his best to consider that argument from the strongest possible position, perhaps look at the constitution and see if it might actually support such a "new" right, or attempt to understand the mental linkage between privacy concerns acknowledged in Roe and how "private" is more than about what other people know, and extends into those decisions which persons have the private right to make without accepting public censure. Or in other words, this is "lawful shitty" or even "laewful obtuse" in character of post.

But in reality part of medical privacy and security is of life/liberty; undue search and siezure; etc. Many additional arguments FOR abortion are both compelling and so perfrctly valid. I would indeed fight to my own death and then immolate or poison my body to despoil it before I would let someone else force me to donate some part of my time or body to another against my consent
Oft. Course my violence would be directed at others long before it turned inward as last resort, though I doubt I am alone. So it must be acknowledged that it is a rather important right to enshrine to be free of such impositions, lest society have many such prospective body slaves taking things into their own hands and rebelling. Fortunately we also have some constitutional protections against slavery as well.

Needless to say, if anyone has a problem with that, I can go sharpen my sword.

“Sharpen your sword” with something other than your diatribe and soapbox about me personally. Let’s start there. That would make sense. Capable of doing that or do you want to bitch more about me and think you’ve said something intelligent?

No. Please stop playing fuckfuck rhetoric games of Lawful-Bullshit. Either work on making the world better for everyone or be called out on wielding the law unethically

 

[James Madison]

“Sharpen your sword” with something other than your diatribe and soapbox about me personally. Let’s start there. That would make sense. Capable of doing that or do you want to bitch more about me and think you’ve said something intelligent?

No. Please stop playing fuckfuck rhetoric games of Lawful-Bullshit. Either work on making the world better for everyone or be called out on wielding the law unethically

Called out? You aren’t calling anyone out with your stupid diatribe about me personally.

Now, if you have something intelligent to say then critique the substance of my argument. You aren’t calling me out in any intelligent manner. All you are doing is yelling unintelligible comments.

 

[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.


.

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)?

My critique has been in response to the Rhea relied upon to defend Roe. There is nothing wrong with defending Roe. Defending Roe by fanatical implication of people being forced to donate body organs to some stranger isn’t it. Specifically when the Roe Court made exceptions to any state power to force any woman to risk the loss of an organ or lose an organ for the sake is the fetus.

There are better ways to defend Roe as opposed to resorting to the idea if Roe is reversed, then forced organ donation is viable.

The Court didn’t rest its holding in Roe upon notions of sovereign control of our organs. Rather, the Court held a right to privacy protected the decision whether to procreate or abort, the same right of privacy the Court held to protect the educational direction of their children, such as learning German, Nebraska v Meyer, the right of privacy to seek parochial education, which the Court said is enshrine within notions of liberty in the Due Process Clause.

Which by the way, I agree with the idea the government isn’t to force anyone to have a child or children, but the Due Process Clause isn’t the clause for it, given its plain text meaning and historical meaning.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Why do I read an asterisk in that last paragraph?

 

[ZiprHead]

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/mrfe27VDuRA[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Gun Nut]

You forgot: women should only get pregnant when men want them to be pregnant. That's the real problem. Women's bodies are not under the complete control of men's desires for sex and progeny.

Disagree. The right thinks women should fear pregnancy from any sex outside marriage.

Disagree. The right thinks women should fear SEX from anyone outside marriage. Pregnancy is the PUNISHMENT outside of marriage, and it is also the REWARD for inside the marriage.
.. and men are helpless to control their own actions in this regard and cannot be held accountable for any outcome.

 

[Gun Nut]

That would only end up be true if men could also get pregnant.

And it is not trivial for women

I suspect, given most men's,....endurance..... reduced sensation is a good thing.

But it's only a good thing for the women, so we can't have that!

My point is that the pill is not trivial to women, sorry if I was ambiguous there. As for reduced sensation, I could care less about that.

One thing about men and condoms... Most men thing kits all about the hard and the fast, and maybe that works for them? I suspect rather that there are a lot of men who have never even tried, over all their years, to see what actually happens when they try to "go slow".

Here's a hint for everyone who complains about condoms: quit treating it like fucking is a race, and start treating it like it's a pleasant walk in a sunny park.

The difference will be rather intense. In fact, the 'loss of sensation' from wearing the condom will probably make such more enjoyable still.

Or, to put it another way, when you run water slowly into a glass, you'll end up with a fuller cup then when you sprayed it in from a firehose to see all of it splash out again.

I have never met this caracturish stereotype you describe. Everyone is different.

 

[Gospel]

Someone clearly missed the 80's, 90's R&B slow jams era.

 

[fromderinside]

I have never met this caracturish stereotype you describe. Everyone is different.

Eyup. This one's got a beard and statement T that one's got more beard and rides a choppah and those are skinheads who rebelled against their beards and bought guns.

Where's Tumbleweed when you want him?

 

[Rhea]

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)?

My critique has been in response to the Rhea relied upon to defend Roe. There is nothing wrong with defending Roe. Defending Roe by fanatical implication of people being forced to donate body organs to some stranger isn’t it. Specifically when the Roe Court made exceptions to any state power to force any woman to risk the loss of an organ or lose an organ for the sake is the fetus.

Perhaps you are not well versed in what pregnancy means to the woman's body, then.

Perhaps you are utterly unaware what it is like to have another human being relying on your organs and permanently changing them while they use them.

Perhaps that's why you think it has nothing to do with other people getting their organs used and that I am somehow "fanatical" about my control over my own organs and how these laws seek to overtake that control?

Perhaps that's why you have absolutely no concept of the space between "no effect" and "organ loss" and that's why when I say organs used, organs changed, you keep denying that organs are at "risk of ,l.oss" which is not what I said, it is not what I ever said, but you can't read that because you do not actually have ANY IDEA what I am talking about?

There are better ways to defend Roe as opposed to resorting to the idea if Roe is reversed, then forced organ donation is viable.

Oh, do tell. Please let me know. I'm sure you've been studying this for decades and you really know what convinces people about it. Please. 'Splain to us.

The Court didn’t rest its holding in Roe upon notions of sovereign control of our organs.

Oh, you thought I was just mimicking the reasoning used by male justices in 1973.

Why on earth would I limit myself to that? There are many good reasons why abortion rights are justified and why the rules that attempt to harm those rights can be used to harm the rights of anyone who wants to protect their own body.

But you thought I was just letting the 6 men in the 70s decide why my bodily autonomy was mine? How... Patriarchal of you.

Which by the way, I agree with the idea the government isn’t to force anyone to have a child or children, but the Due Process Clause isn’t the clause for it, given its plain text meaning and historical meaning.

Which has nothing to do with my discussion about how the use of my organs by another being without my consent, if allowed, would be arguable in many other cases.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Perhaps you are not well versed in what pregnancy means to the woman's body, then.

Perhaps you are utterly unaware what it is like to have another human being relying on your organs and permanently changing them while they use them.

Perhaps that's why you think it has nothing to do with other people getting their organs used and that I am somehow "fanatical" about my control over my own organs and how these laws seek to overtake that control?

Perhaps that's why you have absolutely no concept of the space between "no effect" and "organ loss" and that's why when I say organs used, organs changed, you keep denying that organs are at "risk of ,l.oss" which is not what I said, it is not what I ever said, but you can't read that because you do not actually have ANY IDEA what I am talking about?

There are better ways to defend Roe as opposed to resorting to the idea if Roe is reversed, then forced organ donation is viable.

Oh, do tell. Please let me know. I'm sure you've been studying this for decades and you really know what convinces people about it. Please. 'Splain to us.

The Court didn’t rest its holding in Roe upon notions of sovereign control of our organs.

Oh, you thought I was just mimicking the reasoning used by male justices in 1973.

Why on earth would I limit myself to that? There are many good reasons why abortion rights are justified and why the rules that attempt to harm those rights can be used to harm the rights of anyone who wants to protect their own body.

But you thought I was just letting the 6 men in the 70s decide why my bodily autonomy was mine? How... Patriarchal of you.

Which by the way, I agree with the idea the government isn’t to force anyone to have a child or children, but the Due Process Clause isn’t the clause for it, given its plain text meaning and historical meaning.

Which has nothing to do with my discussion about how the use of my organs by another being without my consent, if allowed, would be arguable in many other cases.

I honestly don't see how any sane person can disagree with the above.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[Lion IRC]

I could be mistaken, but I feel confident that no woman has ever had an abortion performed for leisurely purposes.

Wanda Sykes does a bit about this -- "as if" women had abortions casually. "We don't call up our friends and say, 'GIIRRLL! You thinkin' what I'm thinkin'? They're on sale this week."

The abortion indu$try is doing just fine thanks to the casual willingness of wimmin to use abortion as birth control.

Abortion on demand. <<<see that word there? DEMAND. There's plenty of demand in this market notwithstanding your belief that (smart, educated, rational, liberated,) women would always prefer alternative methods of birth control.

...one of which is not being a slut. #leisure

 

[ideologyhunter]

I swear I thought Limbaugh keeled over dead.

 

[Lion IRC]

I'm still trying to get my head around the idea that governments ought never tell anyone what they can and cannot...must and must not... do with their Own Body^TM

Newt Gingrich is compelled by a mountain of laws to use his own body in ways that he might rather not.

In any case, abortion control measures typically control the bodies of would-be abortionists and abortion industry workers - not their customers. And I dont see any philosophical "right" to kill an unborn human being living in someone ELSES body.