The new GOP Bill. "Protect Life Act"

[Athene]

That is one of the most absurd things I have ever heard. Protecting children is EVERYONE'S business! Furthermore, many of us are fathers and have as much "right" an opinion on the subject as anyone else has.

You have a right to an opinion but you have absolutely no right to tell me or any other woman what we can or can't do with our bodies. That my fellow forumians is the crux of the issue. Rocky and his fellow rightwingers simply want to control the bodies of women. Abortion is the one area where the wishes of a woman take priority over what men wants and men do not like this, not one little bit.

 

[purpledolphin8402]

I am sure I am going to catch hellfire for this, but:

You are a healthcare provider. Tell me please, regarding the 10% chance that you mentioned in your story: Would you tell a patient of yours, "You only have a 10% chance of living, so just go ahead and kill yourself." Is that sound medical advice?

Or let's say you take your sailboat out to sea and get caught in a storm. The Coast Guard estimates you have a 10% chance that you'll make it, so they just write you off and don't bother to rescue you. How would you feel about that?

Your story indicates to me a possible underlying attitude, that the baby - BABY - in the womb is not a full fledged person like you and I are and therefore need not be given every chance as you and I would expect to be given. Am I correct?

The 10% chance was that the baby would go to term. They wouldn't even speculate on the chance of the baby surviving outside of the womb because it's ORGANS were on the OUTSIDE of it's BODY.

I can understand being against abortions in convenience matters, but you seem bound and determine that even if the fetus dies, the mother should as well. That's not morally superior, that's asinine.

 

[Rocky1960]

You have a right to an opinion but you have absolutely no right to tell me or any other woman what we can or can't do with our bodies.

We are not talking about your body.
We are talking about the innocent child that is temporarily living inside your body. We are talking about HIS body! We are talking about HER body! We are talking about THEIR LIFE!

And FYI: Every society has the right to protect the innocent. You have no right to kill and innocent child merely because that child resides within you for a brief time.

Rocky and his fellow rightwingers simply want to control the bodies of women.

No, we want to protect the innocent babes whom you wish to destroy.
Trust me madam, your body is something I care not the slightest about. But if you were attacked I would defend your rights all the same, just as I defend the rights of the unborn

 

[grasping the after wind]

You have a right to an opinion but you have absolutely no right to tell me or any other woman what we can or can't do with our bodies. That my fellow forumians is the crux of the issue. Rocky and his fellow rightwingers simply want to control the bodies of women. Abortion is the one area where the wishes of a woman take priority over what men wants and men do not like this, not one little bit.

I'm afraid that the government does indeed feel it has the right to tell women and men as well what they can and cannot do with their bodies. Especially, but not exclusively, when the bodies of other individuals are also involved. This issue is not as simple as "I have a right to do whatever I please with my body" because you actually don't have that right according to the government. Try selling a kidney to someone or refrain from wearing a seat belt. Roe v Wade established a privacy right not a right of unfettered bodily self control.
I also think you are being unfair to Rocky and right wingers in general. I no more believe that people opposed to abortion are motivated by the desire to keep women in subjugation than I believe that those who have an abortion are cold blooded killers who have no regard for life if it becomes inconvenient for them.

 

[Rocky1960]

I'm afraid that the government does indeed feel it has the right to tell women and men as well what they can and cannot do with their bodies.

Again: This is not about women's bodies, it is about the wholesale killing of innocent children.
I say again:

You have a right to an opinion but you have absolutely no right to tell me or any other woman what we can or can't do with our bodies.

We are not talking about your body.
We are talking about the innocent child that is temporarily living inside your body. We are talking about HIS body! We are talking about HER body! We are talking about THEIR LIFE!

And FYI: Every society has the right to protect the innocent. You have no right to kill and innocent child merely because that child resides within you for a brief time.

Rocky and his fellow rightwingers simply want to control the bodies of women.

No, we want to protect the innocent babes whom you wish to destroy.
Trust me madam, your body is something I care not the slightest about. But if you were attacked I would defend your rights all the same, just as I defend the rights of the unborn

 

[brindisi]

Again: This is not about women's bodies, it is about the wholesale killing of innocent children.
I say again:

You are right: this is about protecting vulnerable, innocent life.

But when these women make the claim of having a right to complete control of their own bodies - which is actually a property rights claim to which I'm sympathetic - I bet they would not be willing to extend the very same right to others, for the purpose of prostitution, incest, sale of body organs, etc. Nor do I think they would be willing to respect other property rights, such as for land use, or the right to private wealth.

In those cases I'm quite sure they are more than willing to have the state step in to take control. Suddenly the state has a very compelling interest and property rights are unimportant, I'm guessing.

 

[purpledolphin8402]

You are right: this is about protecting vulnerable, innocent life.

But when these women make the claim of having a right to complete control of their own bodies - which is actually a property rights claim to which I'm sympathetic - I bet they would not be willing to extend the very same right to others, for the purpose of prostitution, incest, sale of body organs, etc. Nor do I think they would be willing to respect other property rights, such as for land use, or the right to private wealth.

In those cases I'm quite sure they are more than willing to have the state step in to take control. Suddenly the state has a very compelling interest and property rights are unimportant, I'm guessing.

I'm quite willing to extend that claim to other areas. I think marijuana should be legalized. It's safer than alcohol and cigarettes plus has medical benefits and is a lot safer than most "legal" prescription narcotics. I also hate the idea of my tax dollars paying for an inmate whose biggest crime was lighting up a joint every now and then, eating cheetos, and listen to some Def Leopard. I think prostitution should be legalized as well. I would never be a prostitute as I think having sex with strangers is "icky" no matter how well they paid, but having prostitution legalized would cut down std rates since they would have to be tested and since they can practice their, uh, "business" in safe places and not alleys and seedy hotels, I'm sure crime rates would go down as they would no longer be easy victims for rape or murder. Now as far as the sale of body organs, I can see where this can lead to the problem of people randomly waking up in bathtubs of ice, so I am happy with the fact that I can CHOOSE to be an organ donor and would happily donate my kidney to someone to save their lives with no monetary gain expected. Incest, well, as long as they're consenting adults, they should be able to sleep with each other if they want to. It's really gross, but it is ultimately their choice.

 

[purpledolphin8402]

Again: This is not about women's bodies, it is about the wholesale killing of innocent children.
I say again:

Except pregnancy does affect a woman's body, sometimes in ways that are detrimental to their health. So the argument is valid.

 

[jayem]

You are a healthcare provider. Tell me please, regarding the 10% chance that you mentioned in your story: Would you tell a patient of yours, "You only have a 10% chance of living, so just go ahead and kill yourself." Is that sound medical advice?

You're analogy is not apt. As a health care provider I would give a patient as accurate a prognosis as possible. I would also tell them the benefits and risks of any therapy, including the side effects they might experience. And then I'd let the PATIENT make the decision.

Or let's say you take your sailboat out to sea and get caught in a storm. The Coast Guard estimates you have a 10% chance that you'll make it, so they just write you off and don't bother to rescue you. How would you feel about that?

Again, it's not apropos. If my chance of survival was 10%, and conditions were so bad that Coast Guard personnel were already suffering injuries, then I'd expect them to call off the search. I certainly wouldn't expect the law to require that anyone--even a rescue worker-- unreasonably risk his life and limb on another's behalf.

Your story indicates to me a possible underlying attitude, that the baby - BABY - in the womb is not a full fledged person like you and I are and therefore need not be given every chance as you and I would expect to be given. Am I correct?

You are correct. I don't think a pre-viable fetus has the same legal or moral status as a newborn baby. I do think a fetus should be protected, but the health of the mother takes precedence over the interests of a fetus. Isn't that just common sense? If the mother's health is being threatened by continuing a pregnancy--and no medical intervention is mitigating the situation--then the mother should be able to terminate the pregnancy IF that's what SHE wants. That was my main point all along. These difficult cases are private medical decisions that must be made by a woman, along with her husband/partner, and physician, and anyone else she wishes to include. State law should never be dictating what she must do.

I won't give you hell for what you believe. I can respect your moral position. Can you respect mine?

 

[Rocky1960]

Except pregnancy does affect a woman's body, sometimes in ways that are detrimental to their health. So the argument is valid.

Then I will repeat to you again what I posted to you but you failed to respond to:

In other words, to save the life of the mother, correct?

Most of the parents whom I know would glady trade their own life to save the life of their child. I have never known any who would not, and I have known parents who have had to look upon the graves of their own children. What mother would rather sacrafice her child rather than herself?

And I repeat this as well:

You have a right to an opinion but you have absolutely no right to tell me or any other woman what we can or can't do with our bodies.

We are not talking about your body.
We are talking about the innocent child that is temporarily living inside your body. We are talking about HIS body! We are talking about HER body! We are talking about THEIR LIFE!

And FYI: Every society has the right to protect the innocent. You have no right to kill and innocent child merely because that child resides within you for a brief time.

Rocky and his fellow rightwingers simply want to control the bodies of women.

No, we want to protect the innocent babes whom you wish to destroy.
Trust me madam, your body is something I care not the slightest about. But if you were attacked I would defend your rights all the same, just as I defend the rights of the unborn

 

[purpledolphin8402]

Then I will repeat to you again what I posted to you but you failed to respond to:






And I repeat this as well:

I didn't fail to respond to it. Post #154 on page 16. Nice try though

 

[Rocky1960]

You are correct. I don't think a pre-viable fetus has the same legal or moral status as a newborn baby.

Do realise that you are using the same logic that was used to legitimize slavery?

Your POV is not science, it is legalism.

Scientifically, the fetus is human. It has human DNA, human blood: It is not a cat, or a dog or a monkey, it is huiman. That is SCIENCE.

You are talking legalisms, and you are finding a way to make a little human being of a certain age less of a person than you are. Can you not see how wrong that is? You are making the baby 3/5 of a person the same way they did to slaves.

 

[purpledolphin8402]

Do realise that you are using the same logic that was used to legitimize slavery?

Your POV is not science, it is legalism.

Scientifically, the fetus is human. It has human DNA, human blood: It is not a cat, or a dog or a monkey, it is huiman. That is SCIENCE.

You are talking legalisms, and you are finding a way to make a little human being of a certain age less of a person than you are. Can you not see how wrong that is? You are making the baby 3/5 of a person the same way they did to slaves.

An ovum and a sperm cell have human DNA. Are they a person? You're confusing human with person. A fetus/embryo is not a person. It is a potential person. It does not have consciousness, it's not self aware, it doesn't even have the ability to have these. It doesn't even know it exists. It develops later on in the womb, which is why most people (including pro-choice) do not advocate late term abortions. That is SCIENCE.

 

[lux et lex]

Do realise that you are using the same logic that was used to legitimize slavery?

Your POV is not science, it is legalism.

Scientifically, the fetus is human. It has human DNA, human blood: It is not a cat, or a dog or a monkey, it is huiman. That is SCIENCE.

You are talking legalisms, and you are finding a way to make a little human being of a certain age less of a person than you are. Can you not see how wrong that is? You are making the baby 3/5 of a person the same way they did to slaves.

No, not 3/5 of a person, not a person at all. Personhood comes with birth. All born individuals are people and should be treated EQUALLY (regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, etc). If a fetus is viable, then natural birth should be the first plan of action. If it is not viable, and there is some issue where it needs to come out now, then abortion should be available. Women are not incubators. We do more than just grow children. We have options, rights, and needs that should be met. And the last thing I'm going to have is some man stand in my way and controlling my body for me. I believe in equal rights for men and women, but somethings are body orientated that the individual gender would best decide. I'm not going to tell men that they should be circumcised or not, have a vasectomy or not. Men don't get to tell me if I have an abortion or not, get a tubal ligation or not, etc.

 

[Rocky1960]

Do you realise that you are using the same logic that was used to legitimize slavery?

Your POV is not science, it is legalism.

Scientifically, the fetus is human. It has human DNA, human blood: It is not a cat, or a dog or a monkey, it is human. That is SCIENCE.

You are talking legalisms, and you are finding a way to make a little human being of a certain age less of a person than you are. Can you not see how wrong that is? You are making the baby 3/5 of a person the same way they did to slaves.

No, not 3/5 of a person, not a person at all.

Again, that is legalism, not science. (And not Biblical either.)

To say that a human being with a heartbeat and human DNA and human blood is not a person is just - its something that I had better not say.

Satan has truly corrupted the church.

 

[Grizzly]

Does anyone remember when the GOP controlled both the White House and Congress? I wonder why they didn't try and pass this bill back then when they actually had a chance at passing it? Perhaps they really don't want to get rid this wedge issue...

 

[Notamonkey]

I wouldn't even dream of trying, and it becomes ironic then that a bunch of men are here arguing that we should take away womens' rights, then.

We are arguing not for woman's rights but babies rights, both male and female.

 

[Christos Anesti]

If a five year old child was knocked senelss and we had no evidence that he she was self aware at that moment (but there is every reason to believe he or she would pull out of it a later date) would it be ok to kill the five year old? Even if the current speculation regarding the age at which a baby in the womb becomes self consious is correct I still don't see how that would authorize a person to kill the infant.

 

[Christos Anesti]

Does anyone remember when the GOP controlled both the White House and Congress? I wonder why they didn't try and pass this bill back then when they actually had a chance at passing it? Perhaps they really don't want to get rid this wedge issue...

You are probably correct. It's not a problem they want solved it's a problem they can use to gain votes. If they were actually successful with a bill like this they would have to listen mobs of angry voters and the abortion industry would probably spend millions of dollars to make sure they were not re-elected. It's really not the babies fault that the party which claims to be more pro-life on this issue is actually made up of oppurtunist politicions though. I still have to speak up against abortion.

 

[lawtonfogle]

We are arguing not for woman's rights but babies rights, both male and female.

Hey, can I have the right to enter a woman's body even if she doesn't want me there too?