If you support abortion sue to bodily autonomy then you have to support abortion up until birth

If the argument is that the woman has bodily autonomy at 1 week or 1 month or 3 months or whatever and as such that means she can abort the child whenever she wants, then you MUST assert that she still has bodily autonomy in month 7 or 8 or 9 or on the very last day right before she gives birth. According to the logic it’s in her body which gives her bodily autonomy over the fetus. Whether that’s 1 week or 9 months the argument is still the same.

So to those who support abortion due to bodily autonomy do you support it up to the moment of birth? And if not, what logic do you use to assert her bodily autonomy has ended?

 

Viability of the fetus has been the usual determinant.

Roe ruled that a woman has a right to bodily autonomy up to 24 weeks. The issue was viability of the fetus. It was determined that if a fetus could live outside the womb at 24 weeks and after, fetus should be allowed to come to term.

Now, there is some debate about viability, whether it's 18 weeks, 20, 24 or whatever, but whatever is decided, it's a fair argument and a compromise.

For anti-abortionists, I can do a flip side to your argument.

If you believe a fetus is a person at inception, then you must be for having a 12 year old female rape victim being forced to give birth.

There are no easy answers to the abortion issue, there are only compromises or extremism with terrible results. Since compromises presents the least horrific outcomes, I say we go with compromise and agree on viability.

 

Right I understand that but it’s logically defunct. Either the woman has bodily autonomy or she doesn’t. If the fetus is still inside of her, does she not still retain bodily autonomy?

If not, on what grounds? Just because the fetus could survive outside of the womb? Well the 24 week mark is just when the fetus hits around 50% likelihood that he could survive outside the womb. It’s possible the fetus could survive weeks before that and possible it couldn’t survive months after that. And regardless of all of those facts the fetus is not outside of the womb. It’s still in her womb so her bodily autonomy should remain.

So why does that remove a woman’s bodily autonomy?

 

Because viability means the fetus can live among us, it is a 'person'.

The only argument that supports a woman's privacy is that the fetus is not a person.

I wrote more in my comment, refresh your browser and I think You'll find your answer to that question. I wrote:

Now, there is some debate about viability, whether it's 18 weeks, 20, 24 or whatever, but whatever is decided, it's a fair argument and a compromise.

For anti-abortionists, I can do a flip side to your argument.

If you believe a fetus is a person at inception, then you must be for having a 12 year old female rape victim being forced to give birth.

There are no easy answers to the abortion issue, there are only compromises or extremism with terrible results. Since compromises presents the least horrific outcomes, I say we go with compromise and agree on viability.

 

The argument is more nuanced than that. You'll find nuance in the thinking of many people whereas some people view matters as black and white. Or try to frame them that way for their own purposes. Ya feelin' me?

 

Yep, im with Pat on this one.
The woman retains body autonomy, so when she chooses to evict for the benefit of her health, its simply called inducing labor.

 

Abortion is has never been such a straight forward issue. If it was, it would have been resolved a long time ago. Bodily autonomy is just one of countless relevant factors, many of which can be more or less significant in any given case.

Anyone who simply states they either support or oppose abortion hasn't thought about it deeply enough. It isn't something that is just good or bad, just acceptable or not. Abortion is always going to exist as a concept and will always exist as a plausible option in a lot of individual situations. There is no way we're going to decide on all of those possible situations here and now.

 

it's call a c-section, yes, I support it

 

When does the state have an interest? As stated above Roe determined it was at viability. Meaning woman had autonomy until that point. What freaks people out is the slippery slope aspect of this: the state expanding its interest in other aspects of our lives.

 

Odd how many people live in a black and white world. Those people tend to be a waste of time regarding any kind of discussion.

 

The right really need to attack the left on the question of what week of a pregnancy a woman no longer has the right to choose. If a woman has the right to choose up to nine months, then you are for aborting nine month old fetuses. If they left says that that is just not true then they need to tell us what week number a woman no longer has the right to choose. They need to keep being held to the fire until they can answer the question.

 

No! After about week 22 to 24, there is an independent human being as the brain has developed enough to act on its own, learn and feel pain. Before that happens it's just a growth in the mother's womb.

 

Then you agree that there should be no rape exception and if abortion is murder then the woman should be jailed right?

 

You are putting words in my mouth because you want to deflect from what I said. I am OK with a rape exception, if the fetus has an unfixable bad medical condition, and the mother's life is in absolute danger, which doesn't mean just the fact of giving birth can be dangerous for the mother. It has to be a legitimate condition which is actually present that would put the mother's life in danger. So, no, if the woman followed my law she could not be arrested for murder, unless she did an illegal abortion after the 13-15 week period, in which I would put the most onus on the person or facility who did the illegal abortion, not the mother.

So, let me summarize. For the sake of argument, I would say that a woman has the right to choose up to about 13-15 weeks. After that there would only be exceptions for rape, incest, unfixable medical condition of the fetus, or a legitimate threat to the mother's life, not simply a perception that birth's can be dangerous. Since abortion would be against the law after the 13-15 week period, the woman could not be arrested because she wouldn't be able to have an abortion and, of course, before that period she would have the right to choose. But, in return, Democrats and others would have to admit that after 13-15 weeks a woman no longer has the right to choose unless the above criteria were met.

That was the gist of my other post. After a certain point, say 13-15 weeks, a woman would no longer have the right to choose anymore unless the criteria were met. Would you agree to this compromise?

 

20 wks.

 

No, that argument is false, on its face. Unfortunately, it is not unusual, for a conservative viewpoint to be restricted to reducing a question to a single, false choice. Life though, is more complex than that overly simplistic, reductionist view. There are more than one person's rights to be considered here, but all of the rights are not equal in force. Further, those rights are affected by changing circumstances. Shall I continue explaining-- or did your head just explode, from the idea of having to weigh so many ideas, at once?

For an example, though one can find laws that go both ways on this, pragmatically speaking, both the mother, and the developing child, have some protections of their lives granted, under law. Someone who kills a pregnant woman, for example, can in some instances be charged with the murder of the fetus, or some other offense, related to harming it. This distinguishes it from any other part of the woman's body, the damaging of which, will not produce their own, individual charges. Further, there is the precedent of restrictions put upon a mother, to protect the life of her unborn child-- most typically among incarcerated drug users.

Nevertheless, when the fetus is still fully dependent upon the mother's body, the mother's rights take precedence. By the third trimester (after week 26), the fetus's rights become ascendant, and so the mother's begin to wane. That is a simplified primer, for your study, and edification.

 

Wasn’t it up to 21 weeks prior to RvW being overturned? Up to 21 weeks works for me as a fetus isn’t viable at that point. After 21 weeks no abortion except if the fetus becomes non-viable or mother’s life is at risk.

 

Why though? If you're arguing against any "bodily autonomy" factor, what would be the basis for allowing abortion at any point? It's almost as if it's more complex and varied that this kind of debate typically allows for and that the simplistic arguments is all about partisan politics than the actual wellbeing of anyone, mother or child.

Yea, partisan politics like that.

 

Lefties always say they want to be like Europe. Most all of Europe has 12-14 weeks.

 

The left needs to tell us at which week number a woman no longer has the right to choose.

 

I hate abortion, but I hate the idea that anyone but ourselves have authority over our bodies even MORE. I look at it from the perspective of self defense. Not in the way that the baby is a 'bad guy' who deserves to be killed for attacking someone as many seem to view self defense (which it isn't, thats just vengeance), but I see it as self defense in that we all have the right to protect ourselves from both bodily harm and financial ruin (as that can easily lead to bodily harm by preventing us from taking care of our health). Consider the average cost of raising a child through adulthood is about $230,000. Most people would agree that shooting someone who is running away with your TV is not self defense. But ALSO I think most people would agree that shooting someone running away with your $230,000 could easily be considered self defense for the average person, as having that much money taken away would send most of us into total financial ruin where we could no longer afford food, shelter or medical care.

Personally, I wouldn't want to leave it up to a jury to decide whether or not I was justified in shooting a stranger who was running away with the deed to my house and all my life savings. Similarly I wouldn't want a jury deciding whether I was justified in aborting a baby that could result in a similar outcome. While I will never engage in abortion and I find the practice to be detestably immoral, it is ultimately a moral issue and I don't want to live under a govt that has the authority to enforce morality either.

 

Already done, and you apparently think that rights should be unlimited.

 

Lol so nuance means hypocrisy gotcha lol

You can’t have it both ways bro. Either the baby is a life in which case if someone murders it at 8 weeks old due to attzcking the mother, they can get murder charges. But that means if the mother kills it. It’s murder.

Otherwise it’s NOT murder if someone else kills it. You’re asserting whether or not it’s a life is WHOLLY predicated upon whether the woman wants it or not. Which is grossly preposterous.

Either it’s a life or it’s not. You cannot have it both ways.

 

Nope, sorry.

 

What’s even more ridiculous is someone can get ATTEMPTED murder for trying to kill the baby but not succeeding and then the woman can come in 2 weeks later and murder the baby with an abortion and it’s fine. No problem lol