Does the government own your vagina?
I'm interested in the mythodology Fetush Fetishists use to ascribe personhood to fetuses and not Pigs or Goats.
That's not what I'm asking; if that's your take you can simply just not get an abortion except in those cases. My question is "what business is it of yours as to why a stranger would be getting an abortion?" What business do you have with that person? Is there some sort of contractual obligation that you need them to carry any and all nearly-children to term? What do you get out of it?
_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823
?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson
ThatRedHairedGrrl
Veteran
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c6ce0/c6ce06870347232962e9c68409f6b3cd68cb28fc" alt="User avatar"
Joined: 10 May 2008
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 912
Location: Walking through a shopping mall listening to Half Japanese on headphones
Further to this: bearing in mind that a woman might conceive at any time between the mandatory tests, you'd have to assume that any woman of childbearing age could be pregnant and not yet know it herself. Imagine a situation where all women between puberty and the menopause were barred from doing anything that might potentially harm an embryo or fetus - drinking, smoking, taking certain essential medications, eating certain foods, working with a computer, dangerous sports...
Yup, I'm pro-choice, had you guessed?
_________________
"Grunge? Isn't that some gross shade of greenish orange?"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f9fc0/f9fc0a73dd57feae8f63e27df00fdad53bd734e7" alt="Rolling Eyes :roll:"
My question has to do with the idea as to whether or not a child is a person or property, if a child is property then that means they have no rights period (you and I have no rights period). If we are people, then who owns the vagina is irrelevant, we're talking about killing another human being.
If you're so concerned about childrens' rights, then why do you support the right of parents to force kids under 14 to go to dangerous funeral protests as if they were property?
Because, he doesn't like us, and wants to hurt our collective liberal feelings by being pointlessly contrarian
_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do
But do you have any legal claim on the life, liberty, and property of another person? Even if the only way for you to survive is to take from someone else who is not willing to give to you?
I have mentioned before that, though the pro-life and pro-choice sides normally talk past each other by starting on different assumptions, an extreme group within the pro-choice side has attempted to argue on the pro-lifers' terms by arguing that, even if the fetus is a legal person, it has no right to impose on the woman. The cruel irony is that so many pro-lifers would completely agree with this reasoning if applied to any born human being, as they believe it is completely justifiable to let people die in the streets to avoid having to pay a few extra cents in taxes.
I've pondered this difference and come to the conclusion, that in parf it is resistance to a society that has been moving away from patriarchy since 1960. Social programs along with abortion give a woman of means or no means a better opportunity to have control over reproduction and survive when a male is not present for support.
I think it is also a source of world conflict, in that it is a nightmare for extremists in other countries to move in a direction that reduces control over a woman's reproductive freedom.
It is hard to say what came first, religious ideas to aid in control, or religious ideas to impose control. A little of both, probably, depending on the culture that preceded the religous ideas.
I think some cultural beliefs, that are seemingly inhumane and oppositional to what we see as normal per our individual beliefs, have roots in biology and/or the environment.
That's not what I'm asking; if that's your take you can simply just not get an abortion except in those cases. My question is "what business is it of yours as to why a stranger would be getting an abortion?" What business do you have with that person? Is there some sort of contractual obligation that you need them to carry any and all nearly-children to term? What do you get out of it?
Crap, is this my reading comprehension problem again?
It's not anyone's business except the people directly involved. Contractual obligation? Hell no. The only people that get anything out of this are some nuts who try to implicitly join church and state with their government policies. Sorry if I misread it. I don't even know if I misread it actually, I'm just apologizing.
_________________
"You just like to go around rebuking people with your ravenous wolf face and snarling commentary." - Ragtime
That's not what I'm asking; if that's your take you can simply just not get an abortion except in those cases. My question is "what business is it of yours as to why a stranger would be getting an abortion?" What business do you have with that person? Is there some sort of contractual obligation that you need them to carry any and all nearly-children to term? What do you get out of it?
Crap, is this my reading comprehension problem again?
It's not anyone's business except the people directly involved. Contractual obligation? Hell no. The only people that get anything out of this are some nuts who try to implicitly join church and state with their government policies. Sorry if I misread it. I don't even know if I misread it actually, I'm just apologizing.
I may have misread what you said. I think an individual has the right to set their own terms. Obviously if someone doesn't want an abortion, they shouldn't have to get one (unless otherwise endangers both the mother and the fetus then that's just obvious). What I'm saying is that the government shouldn't make that choice for you and saying it should implies a very deep violation of personal rights.
_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823
?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson
I don't know how that is even constitutional. No court would ever go for that I believe.
_________________
"You just like to go around rebuking people with your ravenous wolf face and snarling commentary." - Ragtime
Should the government force mandatory monthly pregnancy tests on all women to ensure that any possible almost-children get the full protection of the law?
How else can they effectively enforce such a thing? Otherwise, the practice continues on the black market and no almost-children are really saved.
Should women wear be forced to wear an item that would demarcate that they're pregnant as soon as the government finds out? It would help ensure that such women didn't try any funny business.
Or to be less intrusive...maybe abortions should just remain legal and be something that is at the woman and doctor's discretion.
Always funny to see conservatives yell about small government then support legislation that's about as intrusive as saying that the government has more a right to a woman's vagina than she does.
Under the Griswald decisioln the right to privacy is guaranteed by the 9th Amendment. Such an examination would violate that right.
ruveyn
I have an idea. We ban abortion and get pro-lifers to put their money where their mouths are. Women who would have chosen abortion get fully compensated by the government for having their rights violated and for the permanent affect that it has on their bodies. I'm no expert on compensation amounts but I'd imagine it'd be quite substantial. The government could then tax the pro-lifers whatever amount is necessary to cover the costs of the compensation and medical care for the woman during her pregnancy and as a result of being pregnant for the rest of her life. Plus all costs involved in setting up my scheme, administering it, caring for the unwanted child etc.
Pro-lifers want it, they pay for it. Simples.
Pro-lifers want it, they pay for it. Simples.
A tax must be a tax on all. It would be unconstitutional to levy a tax on people because of their opinions.
ruveyn
In short, no. Its funny how Conservatives always want to get the child out of the mother, but then don't care what happens after the child is born. They claim to be pro-life, but they would be the first to "pull the switch" or "push the plunger" on a murderer. My family has always told me that if I get someone pregnant, to suggest that she not have an abortion. I will do nothing of the sort. I will follow one motto that sums up my BASIC stance on abortion:
HER BODY, HER CHOICE.
I only agree with abortion by pill or early term, if you are going to wait until late in pregnancy, you should go ahead and give birth to the child. If you do not want it once its born, just try adoption.
_________________
Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?
It should have happened in 1865...it's too late now...
I guess you should do it right for once if you do this. Not sure though, still thinking about it...
_________________
"You just like to go around rebuking people with your ravenous wolf face and snarling commentary." - Ragtime
What if that's the only way the person could afford it? Abortions are a costly thing from what I hear and some people may need to save up for it.
_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823
?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson
I personnally find it amusing how on this forum, in this thread, it is mostly males discussing about female's rights.
Shouldn't the discussion be "mostly" be left to the ladies? I mean, it does concern THEM more than it concerns us. <.< We're not the ones having to go through pregnancy and emotionnal attachment (if there is any) to the lifeform they're carrying during that time.
What if that's the only way the person could afford it? Abortions are a costly thing from what I hear and some people may need to save up for it.
Point taken, sometimes that may be the only way. I think Planned Parenthood may offer a way to terminate your pregnancy if you can not afford it.
_________________
Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Going down to the wire with possible government shutdown |
21 Dec 2024, 12:09 pm |
US government allegedly employ Psionics |
18 Jan 2025, 10:50 pm |
French government is toppled in no-confidence vote |
04 Dec 2024, 4:57 pm |