Does a woman's right to sex outweigh the right of a fetus?

Did you have any point to this statement? Two pro-choicers bring up the issue of rape, I respond to that, and then your response to my response is that "this isn't about rape"???

You didn't even give any explanation justifying your "yes" answer.

 

Those in the petri dishes are not actual living babies until they implant on a womens uterine wall.

 

ah, so conception is not the beginning, ok, got it

so if a baby was grown in a tank, no uterus, guess not real baby when born? so how would that change the ops thought experiment?

 

Rape victims are forced to conceive, yes. They're the ONLY ones who are.

 

and if some on the right get their way, more will

but even if it were "ONLY" rape victims as you say, that would still be wrong

 

That is sadly not the case. For too long woman have been shamed for being raped, told they invited it and wanted it, and have even at times been dismissed even by the police, especially if they were of lower classes. Now while that is changing, it is a slow change, with awareness proceeding actual change. This is before we take in the fact that rape is a trauma and that one does not always process a trauma like normal events. Denial is a major result of trauma, not wanting to admit, even to one's self, that the trauma actually happened. Many rape victims, especially men, have to be coaxed into reporting their rape, assuming that they are believed by someone, assuming on top of that they tell anyone.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Are you sure you want to keep insisting women are not injured and traumatized after being raped?

AS LONG AS IT TAKES


AGAIN, MINIMIZING WHAT RAPE VICTIMS ENDURE AND CLAIMING RAPE VICTIMS ARE EXACTLY ALIKE BECAUSE THEY ARE WOMEN ...

KINDA SETS THE STAGE FOR MAKING RAPE LEGAL SINCE IT"" DOESN'T REALLY HARM"" THE VICTIM....IS THAT WHAT YOU REALLY WANT ?

WHAT TF IS A 'REGULAR" WOMAN ??

THE DENIAL THAT WOMEN ARE INJURED OR TRAUMATIZED IN RAPE MAKES IT LOOK LIKE YOU DON'T THINK RAPE IS SUCH A BAD THING......DO YOU WANT TO MAKE IT LEGAL?

 

American women staunchly and militantly demand and have the right to complete, uncontested control over their bodies and anything in it, or on it. Anyone disputing that is committing POLITICAL SUICIDE. If any of them wishes to kill something growing inside them -- let them!

Hint to all males: you cannot legally command a woman to give birth to your child -- but -- you CAN choose the woman you want to live your life with....

 

It ultimately comes down to sex.

Rapists think they have that right too.


(For those who don't understand why it comes down to sex, it's because a woman had another way to control her body that didn't involve abortion)

 

Okay, now imagine women had some way of ending an unwanted pregnancy that didn't involve killing the fetus, but in order to do that she had to not have sex for a year.

It's an unrealistic hypothetical, but think of it like a thought experiment. What would that tell us.

She demands to kill the fetus rather than go without having a particular type of sex, claiming absolutely "control" over her body.

Is this really that different from the mentality of a rapist? (i.e. "I have the right to sex. Too bad for you!")

 

Do you understand that by the way you wrote this, you are saying she cannot have sex for a year prior to ending the unwanted pregnancy? If it's been a year since she last had sex, there is no pregnancy to be unwanted.

Assuming that you actually meant that she could not have sex for a year after the pregnancy was ended without the killing of the child (for which it is assumed that the prohibition is based upon the woman's physical status after the procedure, instead of there simply being a prohibition with nothing physically stopping her), It doesn't tell us much. It means that she knew the results of the procedure and she chose that over abortion. It's a very pro-choice position. For that matter, a lot of women can't have sex for several weeks or even month after actually having a child depending on how much damage was done to her body during delivery, so the idea of no sex after any given medical procedure is pretty common.

This comes down still to her choosing what procedure available she is going to have. If you want to try to make an equivalent for a thought experiment, then you need to make abortion no longer available because doctors are only willing to do your hypothetical procedure. The woman would still have her right to an abortion, but she has no right to force anyone to perform it.

It is very different. The rapist is the one who is violating someone else's bodily autonomy first. The woman getting an abortion is the one whose bodily autonomy was violated first. The rapist and the fetus are in the same position, just from different sources. There is no denying that the ZEF didn't make any decision to be in violation of the woman's bodily autonomy, but it still is, and she has the right to end that violation.

 

almost a 1000 women a day die during pregnancy, only the woman can choose to take that risk

anti-choicers can't choose for them

 

How is it illogical?

 

okay, now imagine that women will die by making abortion illegal, but one could save their lives by being pro-choice

 

A rapist commits a crime against another person WHO HAS RIGHTS...a fetus has NO RIGHTS


And none of your psycho sex fantasies will ever change that..


See post 482....seem to have missed it.

 

Let's say that an assassin stalks the spa and randomly kills 1% of all the women, EXCEPT those who have smashed the tank. He murders gruesomely and painfully. Should she smash the tank?

Also. Ted Cruz owns this place, right?

 

You sound like a rabid slavery supporter.
"There's no problem here, the Negro has no rights!"

 

But your version of the analogy goes against everything I've been saying. In your version, the woman has no choice. She has to kill the fetus or suffer.

In my version (in the original opening post) the woman is choosing to enter into this situation because she wanted to have sex.

(Plus in reality, it's not the complete end of the world for her even if she chooses not to abort)

 

It ultimately all comes down to POLITICS! Any political faction that attempts to limit a woman's right to kill her own fetus is going to commit political SUICIDE! Does anything else need to be said? "Right" and "Wrong" have nothing whatever to do with it in the United States....

Want to cripple every Conservative effort at the return of constitutional government for this country in the future? Just try and remove a woman's total control over her own body!

 

A slave did not exist inside of another person's body, nor threaten that person's life just by existing.

 

If they set the slave free, that threatened the slave owner's livelihood. How is that so different?

(What are the actual health risks to women if she continues with the pregnancy? Pretty minimal. Chances are things will not be too bad. This is totally normal, part of normal motherhood. The woman WANTS to do this at some point, otherwise she would have had her tubes tied)

 

So now you're saying that every woman who is Pro-Choice should have her tubes tied?

 

But think about it. What's so different about whether she can't have sex before or after?

 

If she wants to make the choice to never have a baby.

She gives her tacit permission to get pregnant if she doesn't do that.

She WANTS to get pregnant, it's just a matter of timing!
Throwing off her time tables a little bit isn't too cruel. It's not like forcing a woman to be pregnant who never wants to be pregnant.

 

Women die from pregnancy complications every day, especially after the first one and more each subsequent