Roe v Wade is on deck

[Rhea]

It ain’t the fall that kills ya. It’s the sudden stop at the bottom.

 

[zorq]

Just because I can't guarantee the health and safety of a dangerous interloper after they leave my property I must be compelled by the state to house feed and endure their continued abuse? Really? Is that how the law works with any other person?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So can we get pro-lifers to wear preg suits for 6 months? All the time, except for showering? Also provide a diuretic in their beverages.

 

[Rhea]

So can we get pro-lifers to wear preg suits for 6 months? All the time, except for showering? Also provide a diuretic in their beverages.

All nine months. Some of the most debilitating exhaustion is in the first 6 weeks, when the implantation starts causing bloating and constipation, followed by crushing fatigue as the blastula starts plugging in to your organs.

 

[Toni]

So can we get pro-lifers to wear preg suits for 6 months? All the time, except for showering? Also provide a diuretic in their beverages.

All nine months. Some of the most debilitating exhaustion is in the first 6 weeks, when the implantation starts causing bloating and constipation, followed by crushing fatigue as the blastula starts plugging in to your organs.

Also required: animation to deliver kicks to your bladder, insert itself up under your ribs, putting pressure on your diaphragm and simultaneously on your sciatic nerve, plus pressure on your badder sufficient to increase need to urinate which does nothing to alleviate the swelling in your feet and ankles. And something to simulate hemorrhoids.

Which is nothing compared to simulating labor and abdominal surgery (for c-sections ). And an episiotomy. Men not excluded.

 

[James Madison]

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.

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.

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

Perhaps I am. Perhaps I am and you do not know it. Perhaps your speculation as to what I’m “well versed” isn’t sound argumentation or reasoning.

Why is it people who have a damn narrative have to adhere to their narrative although it’s fraught with poor resoning, and defensively speculate what other people know rather than present a sound response?

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?

Back to this again? Perhaps your analogy and reasoning wasn’t sound, and that’s why I “think” your analogy is faulty. Forced organ donation isn’t parallel to what you are discussing because you aren’t permanently losing an entire organ whereas your analogy does involve permanent loss of an entire organ.

And I never denied “organs used” but your examples went beyond “organ use” and involved complete organ donation. Two different things.

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.

What “other cases”? Your forced organ donation isn’t a logical implication of a reversal of Roe. To have any rational understanding of “many other cases” requires having read and properly understood Roe. Otherwise, your argument of the undesirable consequence is completely abstract.

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.

And yet you’ve made poor arguments for “abortion rights” and have not demonstrated how a “harm” to “abortion rights” leads to “harm the rights of anyone who wants to protect their own body.” The poor analogies of organ donation isn’t persuasive and to properly support what you’ve said requires an understanding of the law regarding “abortion rights.”

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?

You do not have to speculate, I’ve explicitly told why your argument isn’t a strong argument. Speculating what I perceive or know isn’t a sound argument, and doing so doesn’t refute the substance of my view. You are compounding a poor argument with speculation.

Second, I never denied “organs are at risk of loss.” As a matter of fact, I accounted for it at the top of page 13 (on my iPhone) when I said, “doesn’t permit the potential mother to lose a body organ, or greatly risk doing so…”

Perhaps, no strike that, you do not know what you’re talking about as it pertains to what I’ve said and what I’ve argued.

but you can't read that because you do not actually have ANY IDEA what I am talking about

I accurately read what you typed. I addressed what you typed. What is transpiring now is your inability to defend the critiques of what you typed. So, you deflect with this typical but nonsense tact of asserting it’s the reader’s fault.

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.

Whereas your posts are consistent with someone who hasn’t read or studied the opinion. Do I need to illuminate for you the Holding and reasoning of the case? Or can you be bothered to read what it is you want to defend? Otherwise, I can explain how overturning Roe doesn’t lead to your implications but you aren’t going to understand unless you actually know what the Court held in Roe and its reasoning.

Oh, here’s a link to the decision. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113

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

Why on earth would I limit myself to that?

Oh gee, why would any rational person think that? Oh, maybe because you referenced a specific opinion, Roe v Wade, and then opined of the implications to follow, by example, if the decision is reversed. You tied your examples to a reversal of the decision. You chose to do that, hence, it is perfectly logical to, guess what, examine the opinion to assess whether your coerced organ donation could logically be an implication of reversing the decision or Roe.

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

Oh, a snotty personal attack. How illogical of you! The fact of the matter is you tied your examples and implications to a reversing of Roe. Hence, it is logical to observe that a reversal of the opinion, based on what was said in the opinion, doesn’t lead to your examples and implications.

How patriarchal of you to unwittingly tie your examples and implications to a reversal of the Roe decision. Apparently you have some reservations about the decision and it took an exchange between us for you to express how impalatable 6 men in the 70s deciding Roe is to you. And in doing so, you illogically think you’ve impugned the argument of Roe by the fact it was decided by men in the 70s. As if women wrote the same opinion in the 70s it would be rational, logical, palatable to you, based on those women justices having the same sex chromosomes as you, that of double X, rather than the logic of the argument in the decision by the women.

In other words, your view is people in my outgroup wrote the opinion, so to hell with that. But if people from my in group, the population with double X sex chromosomes, wrote Roe, well hell, maybe I need to pay attention because they are in my ingroup and possibly could be right.

Being a man, and in the 70s, doesn’t demonstrate the logic of the argument in Roe is weak, faulty, illogical, or unreasonable. You’ve not made one intelligent critique of Roe. Not one.

And your ad hominem, speculation as to what I know, doesn’t detract that you made a poor argument, and rather than choose to defend it with an intelligent rebuttal, you retort with the nonsense above.

 

[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.

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.

Perhaps. I’m not familiar enough with any data to speak positively as to what “People” do. The same is true for me regarding “(many) women,” and such quantities really isn’t relevant anyway. This isn’t an argument or dialogue by numbers or grouping.

Rhea made a specific argument and it wasn’t a good argument, and bad arguments isn’t going to engender “empathy.”

And I can concede your “wager” regarding forced organ donation, but that has nothing to do with Roe and Rhea hitched her argument and the consequences to Roe and a reversal of Roe.

Which, by the way, I do think whether to procreate is a right of privacy. But Rhea’s bad arguments aren’t compelling.

 

[Rhea]

Perhaps your analogy and reasoning wasn’t sound, and that’s why I “think” your analogy is faulty. Forced organ donation isn’t parallel to what you are discussing because you aren’t permanently losing an entire organ whereas your analogy does involve permanent loss of an entire organ.

Of course, none of the examples I gave were the permanent loss of an entire organ. That was on purpose. You’d still have the rest of your bone marrow, the other kidney, the rest of your liver, the rest of your blood. I chose “donations” that would be analogous. And of course, pregnancy does indeed include the risk of entire organs, or their function, permanently as well. But my examples didn’t ask you to understand that far. You might argue that one kidney is an entire organ, but it does not leave your body without function, still you can take that one out if you’re not able to see the analogy.

You are hinting that you are a woman who is the “in group” and that you understand this. My apologies for misgendering you all this time, I did not realize this, I will correct that going forward. But your words do not appear to understand this impact on a woman’s organs in pregnancy, so I don’t know what to make of that, but it is not trivial.

As Toni points out - the purpose of the analogy is in part to try to engender some scrap of empathy from men on the magnitude of the effect of pregnancy on a human body. It is also in part to say, “if we decide women’s body’s are vessels without autonomy that can be compelled to donate the use of their organs, including permanent change to the function of those organs and risk of loss of function, then we need to rightly decide that ALL people’s bodies can be similarly coopted by the state whenever another human needs it.”

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.

And yet you’ve made poor arguments for “abortion rights” and have not demonstrated how a “harm” to “abortion rights” leads to “harm the rights of anyone who wants to protect their own body.” The poor analogies of organ donation isn’t persuasive and to properly support what you’ve said requires an understanding of the law regarding “abortion rights.”

My argument may never be pursuasive to you. It would certainly never be pursuasive to the men who would seek to coerce me to donate the use of my organs. Many arguments for civil rights in history were not pursuasive to the people who sought to deny them.

But my argument has logic and the analogy is sound. If the law would force my body to be used to provide life-preserving function to another human, then any body should be available to be forced to provide life preserving function to another human. To say that only women can be forced is a violation of civil rights.

Second, I never denied “organs are at risk of loss.” As a matter of fact, I accounted for it at the top of page 13 (on my iPhone) when I said, “doesn’t permit the potential mother to lose a body organ, or greatly risk doing so…”

Every pregnancy presents that risk, and again it doesn’t have to be to *lose* an organ, it can damage the function of the organ.

Whereas your posts are consistent with someone who hasn’t read or studied the opinion. Do I need to illuminate for you the Holding and reasoning of the case? Or can you be bothered to read what it is you want to defend? Otherwise, I can explain how overturning Roe doesn’t lead to your implications but you aren’t going to understand unless you actually know what the Court held in Roe and its reasoning.

Since Roe limits the coercion of the woman to donate the use and function of her organs to the third trimester, overturning will remove that limit and enable the coercion at earlier points in the pregnancy. Some states are tryign to make that point be when the pregnancy does not even include a functioning person; before it has a working brain, indeed - when it is merely 2 cells.

That is why I entered the dscussion with this post:

Remember when the “centrists” said that progressives were being hysterical about the “unfounded fear” that the right to abortion would ever be at risk?

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

Why on earth would I limit myself to that?

Oh gee, why would any rational person think that? Oh, maybe because you referenced a specific opinion, Roe v Wade, and then opined of the implications to follow, by example, if the decision is reversed.

And that means my objections about the harm its reversal would cause are limited to the harms those justices could envision? Again, why would I limit my understanding of the harm to their limited understanding of the harm?

I envision much more harm than they did. That was my point in the discussion, that I addressed with this post:

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.

Donating marrow does not result in the “loss of an organ”
You may argue that having one of your two kidneys removed constitutes a “loss of an organ,” I’ll withdraw that from the list (even though women with undiagnosed kidney disease can go into complete renal failure due to pregnancy)
Replace it, if you like, with forced blood donation.

 

[Toni]

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.

Perhaps. I’m not familiar enough with any data to speak positively as to what “People” do. The same is true for me regarding “(many) women,” and such quantities really isn’t relevant anyway. This isn’t an argument or dialogue by numbers or grouping.

Rhea made a specific argument and it wasn’t a good argument, and bad arguments isn’t going to engender “empathy.”

And I can concede your “wager” regarding forced organ donation, but that has nothing to do with Roe and Rhea hitched her argument and the consequences to Roe and a reversal of Roe.

Which, by the way, I do think whether to procreate is a right of privacy. But Rhea’s bad arguments aren’t compelling.

I think that Rhea makes perfectly good arguments.

To me, the most compelling argument in favor of maintaining Roe V Wade is that the state has the right to compel another human being to use their body in a particular way. Individuals have the absolute right to make medical decisions that they feel are in their own best interests and this right should not be over ridden by the state. Nor does the state have the right to compel reproduction in any way of any person.

 

[laughing dog]

But Rhea’s bad arguments aren’t compelling.

You do realize that may reflect more on the audience (in this case you) than on the arguments.

 

[Rhea]

To me, the most compelling argument in favor of maintaining Roe V Wade is that the state has the right to compel another human being to use their body in a particular way. Individuals have the absolute right to make medical decisions that they feel are in their own best interests and this right should not be over ridden by the state. Nor does the state have the right to compel reproduction in any way of any person.

Bearing in mind that RvW does currently permit the state to compel a woman’s body to the service of the state in maintaining another being - in the third trimester. I believe that to be a flaw in RvW, and one that I would fight to close. It should be the case that AT NO TIME is one human’s body the ward of the state to be used to sustain another. And if a woman’s body is so compelled, then so should a man’s if another human has need of it to survive.

Knowing that any action against a woman in the third trimester outside of medical need is extraordinarily rare (and would be rarer still if the hurdles against early abortions were removed, and adequate birth control made available) that provision should not be there, as it serves only to oppress women who have a tragic and unwanted need to abort (i.e. most 3rd-tri abortions are on wanted pregnancies).

 

[untermensche]

The state can't compel what a woman does with her body.

It can outlaw other people doing things to a woman's body.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So, the government arbitrarily abducts a woman, imprisons her, rapes her, and forces her to have a baby.

Is the argument that only the first three parts are wrong?

 

[Toni]

To me, the most compelling argument in favor of maintaining Roe V Wade is that the state has the right to compel another human being to use their body in a particular way. Individuals have the absolute right to make medical decisions that they feel are in their own best interests and this right should not be over ridden by the state. Nor does the state have the right to compel reproduction in any way of any person.

Bearing in mind that RvW does currently permit the state to compel a woman’s body to the service of the state in maintaining another being - in the third trimester. I believe that to be a flaw in RvW, and one that I would fight to close. It should be the case that AT NO TIME is one human’s body the ward of the state to be used to sustain another. And if a woman’s body is so compelled, then so should a man’s if another human has need of it to survive.

Knowing that any action against a woman in the third trimester outside of medical need is extraordinarily rare (and would be rarer still if the hurdles against early abortions were removed, and adequate birth control made available) that provision should not be there, as it serves only to oppress women who have a tragic and unwanted need to abort (i.e. most 3rd-tri abortions are on wanted pregnancies).

You make a very valid point.

I am well aware of the rarity of third semester abortions and the reasons that almost all are performed. I *do* have a concern that the state or an individual could compel an abortion in the third trimester. It has happened in China. I've had a friend who was compelled to have an earlier unwanted abortion by her then spouse. I tend to look for unintended worst case scenarios...

 

[Toni]

The state can't compel what a woman does with her body.

It can outlaw other people doing things to a woman's body.

That's not true. Current attempts to limit abortion would, in some cases, actually limit or make illegal birth control (Griswold V Connecticut) and criminalize women self-inducing abortion (morning after pill, some other early abortifacients).

 

[untermensche]

The force is not on the woman.

She can perform an abortion on herself. Maybe absurd but she has that freedom if she has any privacy. If the state allows any privacy it allows a woman to do anything to her body.

The force is on other people besides the woman.

They can't perform an abortion for her.

The end result for most woman would be to not have an abortion but it is not the state telling a woman what she can do with her body in private.

 

[untermensche]

The state can't compel what a woman does with her body.

It can outlaw other people doing things to a woman's body.

That's not true. Current attempts to limit abortion would, in some cases, actually limit or make illegal birth control (Griswold V Connecticut) and criminalize women self-inducing abortion (morning after pill, some other early abortifacients).

I don't think the state has the right to do that.

I don't think the state has the right to tell doctors they can't perform abortions either.

But limiting abortion is telling doctors what they can do.

It is not telling woman what they can do to their bodies in private.

 

[Jarhyn]

To me, the most compelling argument in favor of maintaining Roe V Wade is that the state has the right to compel another human being to use their body in a particular way. Individuals have the absolute right to make medical decisions that they feel are in their own best interests and this right should not be over ridden by the state. Nor does the state have the right to compel reproduction in any way of any person.

Bearing in mind that RvW does currently permit the state to compel a woman’s body to the service of the state in maintaining another being - in the third trimester. I believe that to be a flaw in RvW, and one that I would fight to close. It should be the case that AT NO TIME is one human’s body the ward of the state to be used to sustain another. And if a woman’s body is so compelled, then so should a man’s if another human has need of it to survive.

Knowing that any action against a woman in the third trimester outside of medical need is extraordinarily rare (and would be rarer still if the hurdles against early abortions were removed, and adequate birth control made available) that provision should not be there, as it serves only to oppress women who have a tragic and unwanted need to abort (i.e. most 3rd-tri abortions are on wanted pregnancies).

You make a very valid point.

I am well aware of the rarity of third semester abortions and the reasons that almost all are performed. I *do* have a concern that the state or an individual could compel an abortion in the third trimester. It has happened in China. I've had a friend who was compelled to have an earlier unwanted abortion by her then spouse. I tend to look for unintended worst case scenarios...

I would further agree that third trimester abortions must be allowed to happen, also for whatever reason. Of course most of this arises from my decidedly abnormal view that "life" of the kind that is invoked in the sentence "life must be cherished and respected" doesn't start until the people to be involved with caring and nurturing for that specific life have consented to do so. As humans are brought to consummate their consent to this being a life, through their contribution of care (and through the gateway of consent of primary care givers), that is when a life becomes invested. To terminate a life with agency so vested with the consent of the involved, would make those involved "humans who have betrayed the trust of a life they consented to care for".

Now, maybe it's just me but that is fairly clearly in the circle of "bad faith".

It is that moment of consent that makes all the difference in the world, not for sex but for keeping it.

I'm still going to maintain that the geometry of that moment of consent says a lot of the person making that decision. It's undeniably their decision as the primary caregiver at that stage to not consent, whatever that means to the parasitic life inside them.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The force is not on the woman.

She can perform an abortion on herself. Maybe absurd but she has that freedom if she has any privacy. If the state allows any privacy it allows a woman to do anything to her body.

The force is on other people besides the woman.

They can't perform an abortion for her.

The end result for most woman would be to not have an abortion but it is not the state telling a woman what she can do with her body in private.

You have a right to a defense in the court... you just don't have a right to a lawyer.

 

[Jarhyn]

The force is not on the woman.

She can perform an abortion on herself. Maybe absurd but she has that freedom if she has any privacy. If the state allows any privacy it allows a woman to do anything to her body.

The force is on other people besides the woman.

They can't perform an abortion for her.

The end result for most woman would be to not have an abortion but it is not the state telling a woman what she can do with her body in private.

Except that in these draconian places, getting a couple OTC or easily available prescription medications and combining them off label to produce that outcome all on your own is still considered illegal.