Why elevate the legal status of the unborn above the born?

Credit where it is due. These are interesting twists on my own hypothetical. Let's look at them.

In this case, he firsts violates her bodily autonomy, so her rights at that point trumps his own. With that said, she is external to his body, so even if he is the one who is in the right as far as stopping her from using his bodily resources, the need is not there to terminate her first. Should she perish because of being disconnected from his body, then that is a result, not part of the right.

First, Jem'Hadar. Yeah, yeah, I know my Trekkie is showing. This one is different from your first one in that the first species did not violate bodily autonomy per se in designing the second species. However, they still do not have an outright right to terminate the second species as a whole. If the second species can find a way to obtain what they need without violating the bodily autonomy of the 1st species (substitute, volunteers, etc), then there is no basis for termination (we are assuming the application of our same principles for the abortion debate I assume, otherwise we are comparing apples to citrine.) Only if the second species attempted to take the needed substance without consent, would even the potential be there for termination. Even so, if there is a way to end the violation without death, then it needs to be done. Right now that is not possible with the ending of a woman's pregnancy. If it becomes possible, especially if they can do it with equal or less trauma to an abortion (assuming that label automatically includes termination), then it may be determined that the woman has no right to terminate the offspring, although she does have the right to have it removed from her body.

 

An issue that I disagree with. I can agree with the law making a husband a default legal father, because that will be the case more often than not. But there still must be a recourse in case the odd situation occurs.

 

Honestly, you (generalized) can't complain about "righties" stereotyping the type of woman who have abortions, and then stereotype them in turn. At that point you are hypocritical.

 

Strawman. Not at all what I am doing. And I showed that I read the list simply by pointing out that the list itself stated that there are many that are not suffered by all women. Last I checked 50% was not all women.

So what you were trying to say is that all woman has at least one of those things on the list happen to them, but that there is no one thing that happens to them all? Also are you claiming that there is not a single woman who can get through a pregnancy and never have any of those possibilities happen to them?

Now you are conflating change with harm. I am not going to deny that a woman has changes that occur to her body due to pregnancy. But guess what? She also has changes that occur to her body when she goes through puberty. So unless you are claiming that puberty also harms women, and that all girls should have access to hormone blockers even if they identify as cis, then at this point you need to point out what it is that is the actual harm, as opposed to simply change. I am not denying that there are not harms on that list, although no doubt you are going to accuse me of such in the very first sentence of your response to this.

And again with the strawman. You go from the extreme of ALL woman suffer harm, to the false accusation of my claiming the other extreme that there is never harm. I have repeatedly stated that all woman are at risk for all those things on your massive list. A fact that you repeatedly ignore. But being at risk for something does not automatically mean it will happen. Furthermore, many of those changes and harms can occur from other sources, and are not automatically associated with pregnancy. If "changes to breasts" is a harm from pregnancy, then it is also a harm from puberty.

I'm not denigrating anything that a woman goes through. Hell, the simple fact that woman can go through that processes repeatedly makes them the superior sex in my opinion. But that doesn't automatically mean that ALL women suffer a harm because they are pregnant. If even only 1 woman out over every 1000 can go through at least one pregnancy without harm, then that disproves your "all" claim. The risk remains. Maybe that is your problem. You are not managing to understand the difference between the risk of a harm and the actual harm itself.

 

Then you should be able to show the statistics that counter the claim made with selective statistics, and further prove that yours are not selective statistics.

 

But at this point he is not using the bodily resources of another without their consent.

 

He is, or will be, using the resources of an entire society, a parasite. Unless, of course, at age 65 he crawls into the desert and dies.

 

A SENTIENT clump please

 

You mean when after contributing to that society productive,y for decades they are rewarded?

 

First, such are not violations of bodily autonomy. Secondly, quite a large number of people are working well past 65.

 

Why can't men ?

 

LOL..... you got it correct ( hilariously obvious but correct)


You and the Obvious Award of the century :

"""woman has never become pregnant without first conceiving a child."""





GEE, how did ya figure that out ? LOLOLOLOLOL

 

I give up on you as you seem to be on the side of Anti-Choicers who insist the fetus floats unattached to the woman for 9 months for no other reason than to keep warm.

 

Does using someone else's bodily rescources ( heart, immune system, blood, circulation) harm them?

Gee, if it doesn't then the strongest and wealthiest can force other's to give them blood and other body parts to keep them alive..afterall, no problem, it doesn't HARM or AFFECT them , right?

 

Which only shows that you are not actually reading what I write. I am firmly in the pro-choice side of things, but I don't follow all the dogma some in that camp want to spew. I also will call out bad arguments, even if I agree with the conclusion. Making a claim that all women are harmed, without actual proof that such is 100%, is a bad argument. If you wanted to claim a vast majority, sure, I'd be willing to accept that on faith. You might think that in using BC is tantamount to not consenting to getting pregnant, but I see it as a fundamental basis with the consent given for sex. Yet despite the fact that I follow that right up with the woman still has the right to end her pregnancy, you come back at me as if I was saying she doesn't have that right. You strawman me.left and right, assuming I am saying things I do not, simply because, it seems, I do not provide all the reasons you think I should.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
I give up on you as you seem to be on the side of Anti-Choicers who insist the fetus floats unattached to the woman for 9 months for no other reason than to keep warm.

Uh, ya, if you contend that pregnancy does not cause any effects on women or harm them in any way then you should provide proof.....and you never have....you seem to think you know more than doctors and scientists know....which just isn't true...see, THEY have facts backing THEM up...

 

That can be rather subjective. After all I can make the argument that vaccinations cause harm if for no other reason than they poke holes in the body. No, I am not an anti-vaxxer. I even have my booster as of last month. There is also the consideration that initial harm can result in greater good. Surgery, by its very nature, causes harm as you cut into a person, even if it is to fix something inside. So harm in and of itself is simply not a sufficient metric. This is before we look at the double standards. I pointed out that one of your supposed harms was changes in the breasts. That happens with puberty as well. Are you counting puberty as harmful to women since it shares a supposed harm with pregnancy? I noticed you avoided that question once already. How many more time will you avoid it? You also noted that it can be told if a female has ever been pregnant before. Guess what? An autopsy can also reveal whether she has been through puberty or not. Are you claiming, again because of the same effect, that puberty is harmful to women? This is why I noted that conflating change with harm is bad argument.

You really don't ever read what I write do you? Do you realize how many times I have asked the question of whether the right to life is so paramount that we can take organs and blood as a counter to the claim that abortion violates the ZEF's right to life? My whole premise as to why a woman has a right to end her pregnancy has always been bodily autonomy. The issue of whether a ZEF is human or not, or has right or not, or any of that, never changes the woman's right to bodily autonomy, and her ability to choose to end the pregnancy. While I can come up with conditions (currently not doable under the current medical knowledge and technology) where she might not have a choice to terminate the ZEF itself, even that doesn't end her right to have it no longer use her bodily resources. Learn to read what I actually write and how to address them point by point as I do your posts.

 

why phrase the OP in that way?

 

It has to do with the religious but going out of fashion idea that children in the womb or not have value.

Since we have crossed that value bridge I see no reason not to also weed out toddlers, tweens, and teens who have shown themselves to be criminals. After all, they are just “meat”.

 

It sounds like you are suggesting a woman pregnant from rape is more responsible than a woman experiencing an unplanned pregnancy from consensual sex.

This kind of misogynistic attack on females is so awful. I went to high school with girls who had teen pregnancies. Yes, they were unplanned pregnancies and plenty of them were shamed and attacked for being pregnant. At some point, everybody needs to step back and respect a woman’s choice. Unplanned pregnancies are not uncommon, again, bringing that up and bringing up consensual sex vs rape in this context should have no place if you’re highest priority is honestly the sanctity of life. Stick to arguments involving protecting life and don’t judge females for having sex and becoming pregnant.

 

The question was "why elevate the legal status of the unborn above the born."
IMO that is way too simplistic.
Aborting a child or not isn't a sign of comparative legal status. It is a decision about what is best for the child...unfortunately it is usually the question about what is best for the mother and/or father. The consideration of the unborn child is not usually taken into account.
Science has defined sentience and we should accept that in making any decision. IMO when stem cells become defined, the unborn child is a human being. When it responds to sound and movement, it is a sentient human being.
What makes the difference between its life and death is the weight the parents put on the value of that human life, and NOT what some lawmaking politicking committee decides is best for everyone.

 

I dunno...the anti abortion slogans are pretty loud and proud. Yet I don't hear anything about adoptions or donations or helping these women and their children. As mentioned in my original post, I hear/read lots about 'welfare queens'. But the truth is, it isn't about the moms...its about the babies.

 

I mean after they become dependent on others their human life is still sacred, worthy of protection, as are the lives of babies in the womb.

 

Once again, you have either failed to read what was actually written, or you are purposefully making strawman arguments. I have not contended that pregnancy does not cause any effects. I have pointed out that an effect is not automatically a harm.

Nor have I claimed that women cannot be harmed during pregnancy. I have pointed out that a risk for a harm means that there is a chance that the harm happens and a chance that the harm does not happen. Do you deny this reality?

You are the one with the initial claim that ALL women are harmed in pregnancy. This it is up to you to support that claim. Simply providing a list that shows what might happen in a pregnancy does not support that 100% of women suffer at least one harm in each and every pregnancy they have.

Pot kettle achromatic. I noticed that you have yet to provide any medical fact that shows that ALL woman suffer harm in each and every pregnancy without exception. I also noticed that you have failed to actually address the points I have made. Probably because you can't. So once again I ask (and you will avoid), is puberty is harm to women/girls since it can cause some of the same effects (which you claim are harms) as pregnancy?

 

I don't hear those from the pro abortion side either what's your point? Prove anti abortion supporters don't also support adoption. And the best way "help women and children" is to more support the nuclear family instead of supporting and encouraging single family homes. And yes there are welfare queens and kings and encouraging more of them is not good for society don't you think?