Abortion

Jade Margery said:

People have made the abortion debate about when this cell splits or when that organ develops, but that is not the real issue, nor the reason why all abortions should be legal (unless the baby can viably live on its own, at which point it should be a forced birth procedure).

The thing is that a woman has a right to do what she wants with HER OWN BODY and no one else's right can infringe on that. We all have bodily sovereignty, every one of us. No one can force us to give up a kidney, even if we could do it without health risks and even if it would mean saving someone else's life. Their right to live doesn't take precedence over my right to keep my kidney. The same goes for blood--even if there was a shortage of donors, people cannot be forced to give. A woman who is pregant is effectively donating her body to the life of her fetus--her time, her health, her life--and she has a right to stop that whenever she wants.

Abortion is not about the right to kill babies, it's about the right to not be pregnant. If a machine could be invented that would remove a fetus quickly, cheaply, and safely from an unwilling woman and then allow it to mature in an artificial environment and said machines were widely available, I would be the first to suggest that abortion be outlawed. Until then abortions must be allowed to continue, else we take away a fundamental human right from over half the population.

Click to expand...

Jade Margery said:

It is the right of the woman to remove an unwanted fetus from her body. The fact that this is usually fatal to the fetus is sad, but not relevant. If you were hooked up to a machine that was keeping someone else alive using your body, you would have the right to leave the machine whenever you wanted, even if that meant the other person died. Your body, your choice, and you would not be charged. The only difference in a pregnancy is that the woman's body is the machine.

Click to expand...

oryx said:

Hi Yasic-I don't have alot of time, so I'll make this short. I think that I mostly agree with what you just typed here, but not sure on the details-do you have any more information on this argument, that you can point me too, so that I can follow? Thanks

Click to expand...

Jade Margery said:

It is the right of the woman to remove an unwanted fetus from her body. The fact that this is usually fatal to the fetus is sad, but not relevant. If you were hooked up to a machine that was keeping someone else alive using your body, you would have the right to leave the machine whenever you wanted, even if that meant the other person died. Your body, your choice, and you would not be charged. The only difference in a pregnancy is that the woman's body is the machine.

Do you believe that everyone should be required to give blood if they are able (or not), that everyone should be forced to check the Donor box on their drivers license, that people with healthy 'extra' organs should be forced to donate them, or that everyone should be forced to sign up for the bone marrow registry?

If the answer is no, then you do believe in personal bodily sovereignty... except for one group of people that you will probably never belong to, i.e., unwillingly pregnant women. What's it called again when a right is arbitrarily withheld from a particular set of the population? Injustice? Discrimination?


Now, if you would like to argue that control over a person's body belongs not to them but to their fellow man, that is an interesting take but much against the current trends of western society seeing as we did away with legal slavery quite awhile ago.

Click to expand...

jpcedotal said:

Again, where is the baby's rights? What makes the woman's rights more important? She was here first?

Click to expand...

IzzyPop said:

What baby?

Click to expand...

yasic said:

jpc (what nickname do you prefer btw?)

I do disagree with you in that if it is decided that personhood starts at conception that a woman has no right to remove it, if she got pregnant against her will (rape). In this case alone, the woman is not responsible for the existence of the child and in this case the right to bodily integrity does in fact apply, and overrules the right of life of the child.

By current law (and rightfully so IMO), a person cannot be forced to supply their body to keep someone else alive (unless responsible for the other persons condition in certain situations), this includes the use of the womb, blood, kidneys, and the like for a baby.

Click to expand...

jpcedotal said:

jp or jpc is cool man.

I just have to respectfully disagree. We are talking about nine months of care, then if the mother wants, she can walk away and never look back. She just has to put herself second for nine months. New innocent life, no matter what the circumstances, is worth 9 months.

Click to expand...

Jaycee.Forte said:

Yasic,
I believe that even in situations of rape, even though they may be hard to deal with, it is not the woman's or child's fault that this happened to them. It is still hard to say who has the right to life here. Even in situations of rape, the child has a right to their life. The baby is separate from the woman, both have rights and both should be respected.

Click to expand...

jpcedotal said:

jp or jpc is cool man.

I just have to respectfully disagree. We are talking about nine months of care, then if the mother wants, she can walk away and never look back. She just has to put herself second for nine months. New innocent life, no matter what the circumstances, is worth 9 months.

Click to expand...