No, no, the massive problem with the ‘draft’ argument is that he’s blatantly ignoring that when we impinge in body autonomy we do it for reasons. Him trying to divert the discussion away from those reasons to the “okay, but if we had reasons then banning abortion would be totally justified!” is stupid horseshit, and it’s also the whole point of the draft thing.
Do I need to come up with cites that roughly the same crowd that’s against abortions has also fought contraception access (e.g. Hobby Lobby) and sex ed other than abstinence-only?
All those pro-life evangelicals have fought against teens being allowed easy access to contraceptives because the idea of their darling little girl fucking some boy gives them hives. And to them, that’s been consistently more important than all the ‘murders’ that happened because little Janie got knocked up and needed an abortion.
Bill Clinton, when running for President in 1992, said he wanted abortion to be “safe, legal, and rare.” And we libruls would love to make sure every American woman and girl of child-bearing age can get whatever form of contraception would work best for her, to minimize the number of abortions that happen because the woman didn’t want to be pregnant in the first place.
Where does the resistance to this come from? Not from the left, bro.
You think it supports your position, while the much closer analogy concerning transplants obviously doesn’t. I can see why you don’t want to talk about the latter.
Picking up on this claim to note: Actually, it’s not at all rare for people to die for lack of a transplant that could be provided by a living donor, such as a kidney, part of a liver or lung or intestine, bone marrow, etc. There are at least tens of thousands of people who die in the US each year due to not getting such a transplant. At a conservative estimate, that’s at least 1-2% of the number of abortions that occur annually.
So it’s definitely not the sort of minuscule “edge case” likelihood that you’re trying to make it out to be. If you spend, say, a thousand dollars a year on fighting for legally enforced pregnancy continuation, then proportionally you ought to be spending ten to fight for legally enforced live donation of organs, if the saving of lives really does matter to you so much more than bodily autonomy.
So there’s no myriad of reasons to breach body autonomy, at all.
Your corpse has enough body autonomy that I can’t harvest your organs for donation, (to save numerous lives!), unless you so consented while alive.
But it’s okay for the state to breach women’s body autonomy to protect a bundle of cells with only the potential to become a person.
And the heartbeat indicator is pure, utter nonsense. It is NOT the measure by which we routinely decide life is over. Lots of beating hearts are disconnected from life support because there is no brain activity. Brain death is the measure.
Straight up misogyny to my eyes.
:rolleyes: I’m inferring until further notice that if you did actually have a logically and morally consistent way to make such a distinction, you would have stated it, rather than merely insinuating in a ten-word drive-by post that you could state one if you wanted to.
How about, if half the people believe ‘meat is murder’, and half don’t, then you do as your beliefs dictate and leave others to do the same? Any other solution allows one half to be oppressed by beliefs of the other. Half of the population will always be oppressed, whichever side is currently on top. THAT’S unworkable!
I’ve said previously in this thread that there are already a variety of ways that the government violates the bodily autonomy of its citizens. I don’t agree with all of them, but I don’t have an issue with others. To the extent that you think someone who opposes some forms of violation of bodily autonomy but not others is a hypocrite, I suppose I’m guilty as charged, but I submit to you that I’m hardly unique in that regard. It’s a not uncommon view. For example, looking just at the issue of abortion, the viewpoints that it should be illegal in all circumstances and legal in all circumstances are minority positions. The most common position is that it should be legal in some circumstances and illegal in others. Are those people all hypocrites in your eyes because they find “forcing a woman to provide the use of her blood and organs” acceptable in some circumstances and unacceptable in others? Is a generally pro-choice person who nevertheless opposes partial birth abortions a hypocrite?
Ahhh, I think I see where your confusion lies. My position is not that “the thingy in the tummy” shouldn’t be “murdered”, but that it shouldn’t generally be killed absent some really good reason. I don’t regularly use the word “murder” to describe the act of killing the “the thingy in the tummy” because:
-
“murder” is a legal definition for a particular form of ending a human life that I don’t think is applicable to the act of abortion, and
-
“murder” is a word laden with connotations that tend to draw a lot of emotion into a debate. For example, elbows’ “meat is murder” position.
Where are you at on birth control? I don’t mean to derail the thread, but I think it is pertinent to the discussion. The people sponsoring these types of bills in Ohio also seem to want to remove coverage for certain forms of birth control. Birth control seems to prevent the evil abortion thing from being a thing.
Especially in cases where, as on the issue of abortion, the prohibitionist view is based purely on religious/spiritual belief.
The idea of full personhood with full legal rights (in addition to its unique and massive “right” to be physically sustained by using an existing person’s body) inhering in a fertilized ovum from the instant of fertilization onward has no basis other than doctrines of faith. These may be theological doctrines of “ensoulment” by a deity, or arbitrary claims about what’s owed to the ovum’s “potential” as a person.
All other arguments for prohibiting abortion—that it will be better for women’s physical or mental health, that it will make women better and more caring mothers, that it will improve our morals as a society—are completely unsupported by evidence (and in some cases, directly contradicted by evidence). Ultimately, the anti-abortion position rests on nothing more than the personal beliefs “I think this is what God wants” or “I choose to regard a non-sentient cluster of cells as a fully human person”.
And who gets to decide how good the reason is??
Fair enough. So you would in fact disagree with the idiocy in the laws under discussion where they say that say that fetuses are people, then?
Also, why shouldn’t the thingy be killed? Does it owe you money that won’t be paid back if it’s killed? Because that would be a good reason not to want it killed.
Politicians, of course!
As octopus has pointed out, we live in a democracy, so we all do, or at least we should all get to if a handful of judges hadn’t taken it upon themselves to decide for us.
Not that this really matters, but…
Alabama Public Television Refuses To Air Episode Of ‘Arthur’ With Gay Wedding
The takeaway here is that the Great State of Alabama will vigilantly shield children from gay cartoon mice, but if they get knocked up by a rapist they can go piss up a rope.
So every time a woman wants to get an abortion, the whole US gets a vote on whether or not she has a good reason?
Yeah-Let’s have a National Abortion Election every month.
Sure, but usually when we find ourselves supporting positions that seem contradictory, we have reasons that explain our support in a more consistent way. Or else we just acknowledge that our positions are somewhat inconsistent and arbitrary because that’s just how we feel about it, and we don’t really care whether it’s rational.
In the case of forced continuation of pregnancy versus forced live donation of organs, you don’t seem to have bothered to try to establish even a shred of consistency. You’re completely in favor of violating pregnant women’s bodily autonomy to preserve the existence of embryonic or fetal cells that have little to none of the capabilities of a human person. Yet you’re completely apathetic about accepting the loss of tens of thousands of lives annually, lives of indisputably human persons, to avoid violating the bodily autonomy of potential organ donors by forcing them to donate organs.
Are you admitting that that’s just irrational and you don’t care, or are you saying you have rational justification for it? Because from where I’m sitting, your position looks like a typical baked-in response to the assumptions of a traditionally patriarchal and religious culture: namely, a fetus is a baby, a woman is a vessel to bear a baby, God made woman to be a mother and rejoice in bearing her baby, and so on and so forth.
ISTM that most people holding such views don’t really take forced continuation of pregnancy seriously as a violation of bodily autonomy, the way they’d take forced kidney or even bone marrow donation seriously as a violation of bodily autonomy. Because a woman being pregnant is just fulfilling her nature, and if she only stopped being so selfish and started appreciating this precious gift from God she wouldn’t want an abortion anyway.
Here’s what I posted earlier in this thread:
Does that help you understand my view? Or do you still have questions?