Texas Finally Passes Abortion Bill!

[Crumlark]

Let me rephrase.

They cannot ask for consent. They cannot choose if they enter. They are brought into the situation by another without being witting of the situation or the grand scheme of things.

Not asking for consent doesn't make it okay to do something to someone against their will. If you don't want me to fuck you, and I fuck you anyway, it doesn't magically stop being rape just because I never "asked" for consent so you couldn't say no.
If they're not witting of the situation or the grand scheme of things, they lose nothing by being removed from the situation or the grand scheme of things.

BIG difference between 'will not' and 'can not' in that situation.
They lose the future ability to live normally.

[Dragoria]

They still do not get to use another person's body without the other person's consent.

I'm not sure what's difficult about this. It's like you don't think that women are people who get to own their own bodies or something.

You are bringing an emotional charge to this discussion. Let's bring it down a bit?
The mother is uncomfortable.
The unborn will be terminated as a direct result of knowing and reckless actions removing it. I simply place the right to life above comfort. I am sorry we cannot see eye to eye on this in even the most basic form of this.

"Right to life" does not override someone else's "Right to bodily sovereignty".

I have a medical condition where if you don't let me fuck you I will die" does not make rape okay. Using someone else's body against that someone else's will is not acceptable under any circumstances, at all, ever.

[Bodobol]

Yes, because the child is still parasitic by its very nature.

So for you, until that umbilical cord is cut, the mother can do absolutely whatever she likes to her offspring? By that mentality, what if a mother consumed alcohol in excess during pregnancy, because, after all its her body, and her child is born with a deficiency?

Alcoholism (or engaging in any activities that would harm the child) would not be acceptable during pregnancy if she were to bear the child, because it would affect the child's sapient life.

[Dakini]

They still do not get to use another person's body without the other person's consent.

I'm not sure what's difficult about this. It's like you don't think that women are people who get to own their own bodies or something.

You are bringing an emotional charge to this discussion. Let's bring it down a bit?

I'm bringing an emotional charge to a discussion on whether you think I should be enslaved to something that decides to grow in me?

The mother is uncomfortable.

She's not a mother until it's born.

The unborn will be terminated as a direct result of knowing and reckless actions removing it.

How is it reckless?

I simply place the right to life above comfort.

And I place the right for a person (which a woman is) to assert the right to only allow use of their body when they allow it. We do not grant born persons this "right" why the fuck should unborn non-persons be given special privileges? Especially, why should their "privilege" overrule a person's (the woman's) rights?

I am sorry we cannot see eye to eye on this in even the most basic form of this.

Yeah, I would have thought that you could be less about enslaving women too. But apparently that's too difficult.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

You mean this well?

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/underground-abortions-poland-will-catholic-country-ease-pro-life-laws

Making something illegal does not stop it, but it does reduce the frequency with which it happens.

The future looks bright in that country: "a full 76 percent of Poles aged 15 to 24 favoring a total ban on abortion, compared to 57 percent of Poles aged 55 to 70 who favored total protection of the unborn."

http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/8837-polish-abortion-ban-defeated-pro-life-leaders-optimistic

Which will then lead to:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/0 ... 84635.html

[Dragoria]

Not asking for consent doesn't make it okay to do something to someone against their will. If you don't want me to fuck you, and I fuck you anyway, it doesn't magically stop being rape just because I never "asked" for consent so you couldn't say no.
If they're not witting of the situation or the grand scheme of things, they lose nothing by being removed from the situation or the grand scheme of things.

BIG difference between 'will not' and 'can not' in that situation.
They lose the future ability to live normally.

Not the mother's problem.
Whether you can/did ask does not make my "no" any less valid.

[Christian Democrats]

"Right to life" does not override someone else's "Right to bodily sovereignty".

The so-called "right to bodily sovereignty" makes no sense because, carried to its logical conclusion, a person ought to be an individualist anarchist.

[Madredia]

So for you, until that umbilical cord is cut, the mother can do absolutely whatever she likes to her offspring? By that mentality, what if a mother consumed alcohol in excess during pregnancy, because, after all its her body, and her child is born with a deficiency?

Mothers can. And do.

It's not illegal, it's just that mothers who care about the wellbeing of their child don't.

But if that she gives birth to that child, is he/she allowed to file a lawsuit later on in life? IMO they should 100% be allowed to.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

"Right to life" does not override someone else's "Right to bodily sovereignty".

The so-called "right to bodily sovereignty" makes no sense because, carried to its logical conclusion, a person ought to be an individualist anarchist.

Individualism is the greatest theory developed in modern times.

It means I am not bound to listen to anyone's bullshit if said bullshit will harm me directly.

[Bodobol]

Mothers can. And do.

It's not illegal, it's just that mothers who care about the wellbeing of their child don't.

But if that she gives birth to that child, is he/she allowed to file a lawsuit later on in life? IMO they should 100% be allowed to.

No, because since she allowed the child to be born, she willingly bore the pain and should not be able to file a lawsuit. If a woman does not want a child to be born and is not willingly bearing the pain, she should be able to get an abortion.

[Madredia]

You are bringing an emotional charge to this discussion. Let's bring it down a bit?

I'm bringing an emotional charge to a discussion on whether you think I should be enslaved to something that decides to grow in me?

The mother is uncomfortable.

She's not a mother until it's born.

The unborn will be terminated as a direct result of knowing and reckless actions removing it.

How is it reckless?

I simply place the right to life above comfort.

And I place the right for a person (which a woman is) to assert the right to only allow use of their body when they allow it. We do not grant born persons this "right" why the fuck should unborn non-persons be given special privileges? Especially, why should their "privilege" overrule a person's (the woman's) rights?

I am sorry we cannot see eye to eye on this in even the most basic form of this.

Yeah, I would have thought that you could be less about enslaving women too. But apparently that's too difficult.

Didn't you say fetuses aren't sentient? How can it "decide to grow in you,"?

[Dakini]

You mean this well?

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/underground-abortions-poland-will-catholic-country-ease-pro-life-laws

Making something illegal does not stop it, but it does reduce the frequency with which it happens is reported.

Fixed that for you.

The future looks bright in that country: "a full 76 percent of Poles aged 15 to 24 favoring a total ban on abortion, compared to 57 percent of Poles aged 55 to 70 who favored total protection of the unborn."

http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/8837-polish-abortion-ban-defeated-pro-life-leaders-optimistic

Yeah, it's so wonderful, clearly.

A Polish teenager who became pregnant after rape should have had unhindered access to an abortion, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled.

The girl, who was then 14, was forced to have a clandestine abortion after harassment from pro-life groups led to her being turned away from hospitals.

The court ordered the Polish state to pay the teenager and her mother 61,000 euros (£49,000) in compensation.

Poland's abortion law is among the strictest in Europe.

Terminations are only permitted in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother or foetus is in danger.

'Manipulated and helpless'
The unnamed teenager at the centre of this court case became pregnant in 2008 after she was raped at the age of 14.

In accordance with the law, she got a certificate from the public prosecutor confirming that her pregnancy was as a result of unlawful sexual intercourse.

The girl, named only as "P" went to two different hospitals with her mother in her hometown of Lublin in south-east Poland to try and obtain an abortion.


Pro-choice Poles want the Catholic Church to have less influence over abortion law
At one, a Roman Catholic priest attempted to convince her to have the child. Hospital management then issued a press release saying they would not perform the procedure, leading to her case becoming caught up in Poland's ongoing debate about abortion.

The girl then travelled to a hospital in Warsaw, but doctors there said they were under pressure not to go ahead with the procedure.

The court documents say the pair left the hospital "feeling manipulated and helpless", after which they were harassed by pro-life groups and eventually taken in for several hours of police questioning.

The authorities then accused the mother of trying to force her daughter into having an abortion and had "P" placed in a juvenile shelter.

She eventually managed to go ahead with the termination in Gdansk, 500km from her home, after the Ministry of Health intervened in the case.

In their ruling, which is subject to appeal, a panel of judges at the European Court of Human Rights found that there had been numerous breaches of the girl's rights.

The court found that she should have had unhindered access to lawful abortion and that the details of her case should not have been made public by hospital authorities.

So wonderful for everyone, clearly.

[Dakini]

I'm bringing an emotional charge to a discussion on whether you think I should be enslaved to something that decides to grow in me?


She's not a mother until it's born.


How is it reckless?


And I place the right for a person (which a woman is) to assert the right to only allow use of their body when they allow it. We do not grant born persons this "right" why the fuck should unborn non-persons be given special privileges? Especially, why should their "privilege" overrule a person's (the woman's) rights?


Yeah, I would have thought that you could be less about enslaving women too. But apparently that's too difficult.

Didn't you say fetuses aren't sentient? How can it "decide to grow in you,"?

The same way a vine "decides" to grow up the side of my house.

[Anachronous Rex]

Mothers can. And do.

It's not illegal, it's just that mothers who care about the wellbeing of their child don't.

But if that she gives birth to that child, is he/she allowed to file a lawsuit later on in life? IMO they should 100% be allowed to.

Off hand I don't know. You'd have to look up legal precedent.

My guess is that, in most cases, extreme poverty precludes legal action anyway.

[Madredia]

But if that she gives birth to that child, is he/she allowed to file a lawsuit later on in life? IMO they should 100% be allowed to.

No, because since she allowed the child to be born, she willingly bore the pain and should not be able to file a lawsuit. If a woman does not want a child to be born and is not willingly bearing the pain, she should be able to get an abortion.

No I was saying that if a child has a deficiency due to the fact that their mother drank during pregnancy, they should be allowed to sue for damages later in life.

[Bodobol]

No, because since she allowed the child to be born, she willingly bore the pain and should not be able to file a lawsuit. If a woman does not want a child to be born and is not willingly bearing the pain, she should be able to get an abortion.

No I was saying that if a child has a deficiency due to the fact that their mother drank during pregnancy, they should be allowed to sue for damages later in life.

I thought you meant it the other way around (mother sues child for causing her 9 months of pain).

I think that yes, if the mother drinks excessively during pregnancy and gives birth to a child with defects, the child should be able to file a lawsuit later on in life.

[Dragoria]

"Right to life" does not override someone else's "Right to bodily sovereignty".

The so-called "right to bodily sovereignty" makes no sense because, carried to its logical conclusion, a person ought to be an individualist anarchist.

The "Right to bodily sovereignty" means "It is my body and I decide what is or is not done with it." If that means they decide their body should be used to create new life, that is their decision and no-one else's. If they decide that means their body should NOT be used to create new life, that is their decision and no-one else's.
If that means they decide their body should be used to break laws, that is their decision.
Decisions are not made in a vaccuum. A person weighs the potential outcomes, such as the risk of dying in childbirth or cost of raising a child, or possible complications from the abortive procedure, or government officials acting to enforce the law they are breaking, before they make that decision.
How "well" they weigh those potential outcomes varies from person to person, situation to situation, and is something of a matter of opinion. But ultimately the decision of what is done with a body goes to the body's owner (or the owner's next of kin, if the owner does a particularly "bad" job of weighing the potential outcomes.)

[Christian Democrats]

So wonderful for everyone, clearly.

An abortion would have been legal, but all the doctors in the area were morally opposed to it.

What would you do? Force a doctor to perform an elective abortion on a woman against his will?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

-snip-

Seriously, why do pro-life advocates DO NOT see how other countries who are pro-life are dealing with the issue and how harsh are the conditions for women in those countries? Is it because of American Exceptionalism? Is it willful ignorance? What is it?

For someone who find themselves waiving the "morality" flag and shaming pro-choice advocates, they sure don't come as the brightest.

[Dakini]

No, because since she allowed the child to be born, she willingly bore the pain and should not be able to file a lawsuit. If a woman does not want a child to be born and is not willingly bearing the pain, she should be able to get an abortion.

No I was saying that if a child has a deficiency due to the fact that their mother drank during pregnancy, they should be allowed to sue for damages later in life.

Ah yes. Punish those stupid sluts good 'cause women ain't worth a damn unless they're providing us with healthy men. Yee-haw!

[Bodobol]

So wonderful for everyone, clearly.

An abortion would have been legal, but all the doctors in the area were morally opposed to it.

What would you do? Force a doctor to perform an elective abortion on a woman against his will?

It would be infinitely preferable to having the mother die due to an illegal abortion.

[Dakini]

So wonderful for everyone, clearly.

An abortion would have been legal, but all the doctors in the area were morally opposed to it.

What would you do? Force a doctor to perform an elective abortion on a woman against his will?

Would I force a doctor to do his or her job? If they want to keep the job, yes.

[Christian Democrats]

If that means they decide their body should be used to break laws, that is their decision.

This is exactly why the "bodily sovereignty" argument makes no sense.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

So wonderful for everyone, clearly.

An abortion would have been legal, but all the doctors in the area were morally opposed to it.

What would you do? Force a doctor to perform an elective abortion on a woman against his will?

Under pressure != Morally opposed

Really now, you should read before commenting.

[Dakini]

-snip-

Seriously, why do pro-life advocates DO NOT see how other countries who are pro-life are dealing with the issue and how harsh are the conditions for women in those countries? Is it because of American Exceptionalism? Is it willful ignorance? What is it?

For someone who find themselves waiving the "morality" flag and shaming pro-choice advocates, they sure don't come as the brightest.

You know, it also wouldn't surprise me that if in addition to the doctors who are offering services to "initiate menstruation", there were also a lot of women just travelling freely to other EU countries that are actually civilized or importing pills from France (you know, a country where the most common method for abortion is the actual abortion pill... not the wimpy morning after pill) since being in the Eurozone means they can freely import pretty much whatever from other Eurozone countries.