Two responses: an infant, born minutes ago, will surely die unless someone’s body does something for that infant. Humans are not born ready to care for themselves. And we already know that society is perfectly willing to impose that duty on the mother: a woman cannot legally give birth and then walk away from the infant without ensuring that someone cares for him or her.
Secondly, what about cojoined twins? Are they parasites? May we legally kill one?
Ok. Also, the real murderers are people who stab other people in the liver, and also they are people who poison other people, and also they are people who sell heroin to other people.
Are we making lists of various real murder categories?
Yes, that’s a fair point. But the answer is yes, and it does not arise from animus against XX chromosome pairs. It’s simply a consequence of biology. The man sprays semen and leaves; the woman carries the child from conception to birth. So if the child is indeed a human, then, yes, the state should be able to use one human being’s body for another’s benefit, against the first person’s will . . . but as a result of a special circumstance, not as a general case.
Interestingly, no one seems to be calling for forced blood and organ donation from women as a general practice. If the animus against woman’s decisional acumen is so strong, where is the call for forced kidney donations from women?
With respect to these discussions, as a woman, I’ve never felt that I was being called stupid. Immoral is more like it. And, like you, I believe the controversy centers on control of reproduction, and the contraceptive issue is just as much a part of it as abortion, even if every PP thread devolves into questioning where life begins. Religion and contraception do not mix.
Ah. Well, I see the key is the definition of “biologically dependent”.
Very well; in the case that I was thinking of, the medical decision to proceed was made by the twins’ parents. If we are to seek out analogisms, letting the decision be made by the to-be-aborted fetus’ parents also seems fair, though clearly one parent has a significantly greater ongoing involvement.
Everyone has or should have the right to evict anyone inside their bodies that they don’t want inside them, even if they provided earlier consent for them to come inside. It’s possible that this means some women will make bad choices – but I think the vast majority will make the best choice for them, and I’d rather err on the side of some women making poor choices about abortion than take away their right to completely control access and use of their bodies.
I am unaware of anywhere in the US where a woman can legally get an abortion after fetus viability unless there are extreme extenuating circumstances (e.g. threatens the life of the mother or extreme deformity such that the baby would not live long after birth).
Ah so the reson that more woman than men are pro choice is that women hate babies more than men. No wonder they shouldn’t be allowed control of all of those complicated genitalia.
What the hell kind of nonsense is that? The child didn’t crawl up inside the mother and take up residence, and it most certainly wasn’t there by invitation! :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: It was createdwithin the woman as a direct result of actions taken by the her and it never existed anywhere else. And in my opinion, since it didn’t ask or have any say whatsoever in its creation and is therefore a totally innocent party, its right to life (and exclusion from the horrors of abortion - why is it that those most opposed to the torture of terrorists are also the most vocal cheerleaders for the horrid rending apart of unborn babies?) by all rights should supersede that of the woman who created it by her own actions.
In my opinion, it’s entirely up to the woman. It’s her body – she gets to choose, at any time, and for any reason, who and what gets to stay inside her body.
If you wake up with a little person inside you, it’s up to you if it gets to stay. Doesn’t matter how it got there. You get to choose. And so do women.
The push to defund PPH is nonsensical. Looking at the pdf provided by Bricker you can see the majority of their services are related to STD testing and birth control. By millions. Most PPH clinics do not perform abortions, they only refer. It’s less than three percent of what they do. 97% of their services don’t count for shit though, because God forbid they suggest someone have an abortion. So why shouldn’t they receive funding for those services? Why not just say “okay here’s your funding but you can’t spend it on abortion because we are against that (for whatever reason)”. Oh it’s because we ALREADY do that.
Yep, they think we don’t deserve affordable reproductive care. If we’d just keep our legs closed we wouldn’t have these problems.
I’m beginning to develop Bricker’s Law: In SDMB debate, any post that begins, “So what you’re saying is…” (or similar words) is virtually certain to mischaracterize the argument to which it is responding.
Thank you for the data point.
The answer to your post is: no, that’s not the reason. I imagine more women are opposed to limits on abortion than are men because their self-interest is implicated and because they are thus more disposed to accept the claim that the fetus is merely tissue, not a human being. But plenty of women are pro-life; the March for Life is tomorrow and you have only to watch the marchers to see that this is true. There are ten speakers scheduled for the event and four are women.
And of course self-interest aside, undoubtedly many women simply believe in the arguments outlined above: that it’s morally unacceptable to force a person to invade the body of another.
As do many men.
In other words, people of good faith can reach conclusions without animus towards women, or without preferential bias towards women.
As I clearly said: “…a woman cannot legally give birth and then walk away from the infant without ensuring that someone cares for him or her.”
The purpose of the Safe Haven programs to which you advert is precisely to ensure that a woman can walk away but still ensure that someone will care for the infant.
And once more, the push to prevent women from choosing abortion is exactly the same push that will someday prevent them from refusing abortion. It’s all the same antichoice agenda, and it’s always by the same people, who are never, except on this narrow issue, pro-life.