Does the government own your vagina?

Post Reply New Topic

I think this is a serious question to ask with abortion.


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.

Should almost-children be immediately issued certificates of citizenship as soon as the monthly pregnancy tests confirm that it is a citizen and thereby the vagina is no longer in the woman's possession but the state's?

Loving the title of this thread

Yes, the government does own my vagina.

A counter argument is: Are you property of your parents?

A counter-counter question: Are you the property of your pants?

By issuance of a birth certificate.

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 haven't noticed, children are property and don't especially have rights other than those granted by their parents and even then, government can easily supersede that. And it still doesn't change that abortion doesn't kill a child. It hasn't been born yet so by all standards, it's not a child. Even by biblical standards.

The Israelis didn't practice infanticide...

Furthermore, children are not considered property, they are considered to be minors, if parents are abusive to their children the children can be taken away for the safety of the child.

Only in Hawaii, where there are problems determining citizenship.

I find the juxtaposition of social Darwinist and pro-life views in the same individual very interesting. There is no plausible way of reconciling these two stances, as the reasoning of the social Darwinist is identical to that of the most extreme and callous pro-choice advocates. The cognitive dissonance must be tremendous.

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 believe abortions should happen only in cases of rape, incest, or threat to the mother's life. But still...

Forget about intrusiveness and smaller government...what about the anti-abortion nuts? I questioned one at a talk about rape, incest, or threat to the mother's life and they said rape is not a reason for an abortion and completely dodged the two others. Then there was a part about Darwin and I said, "That is artificial selection, not natural selection," and they stated they did not know anything about Darwin WHEN IT WAS IN THE VIDEO THEY PROMOTED.

Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas questioned when the soul was imparted into the child. If you find a Christian dogma there is somewhere else that one disagreed. But only one view counts.

I believe the government does not think a fetus is a human until 26 weeks.

Republicans are complete hypocrites and only care about rich white people. It says something when Hispanics are normally Christian with conservative values (from what I have heard) and they cannot get them in their base. Just look at Fox News, especially Sean Hannity. You don't need to be a Republican to be conservative. There have been numerous times people have called me right-wing (and in some cases I am) but I would never be Republican. They try to implicitly join church and state, especially on homosexual marriage and abortion (even though it is not in the Bible). One Delaware candidate said Separation of Church and State came from Nazi Germany. No joke.

I've never regarded most fetuses and embroyos as people, maybe in the late third trimester, but before then not really.

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?

And if an abortion happens in a case other than defined above, what business is it of yours to know?

I don't believe abortions should ever happen except for those cases. I would like to hope it doesn't more so than actually telling someone you cannot have one. But I am not going to do something as stupid as to monitor a woman's pregnancy to make sure that an abortion does not happen. That is ridiculous.

If a person makes a choice to have an abortion (EDIT: except for those cases), I would disagree with that choice. I cannot stop it though. I would just like to hope that a person only does it because of those reasons.

Last edited by HerrGrimm on 10 Apr 2011, 4:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.