Yes, you did; here it is: And what was your reason? Apparently, it was make-believe: Someone other than me did address that point↗, but you chose to duck it: "That's essentially what I said," you replied, ignoring the implications. The difference between the two is affecting. And you insist: That "most people don't know the ins and outs of late term abortion practices" does not justify your parsing, especially when you want recognition of a woman's human rights to be "essentially" the same as refusing that recognition. It's like when you said— —and nobody is supposed to notice that you spent multiple posts justifying exceptions according to pretenses of ignorance and confusion. As you were told↗, "Actually, what you said is that you 'dithered' on the point when discussing the legality of it". And you should probably take the advice you were given: "When faced with said false narrative, don't 'dither' based on the 'practicalities'. Actually address the false narrative that is being used to force women to remain pregnant." Because, no, you're not being heroic— —when you "dither" for the sake of a false narrative. (Is it always somebody else's fault, the dangers of some nebulous other? "I anticipated that my response would very likely be misinterpreted by people such as yourself," you told Bells, and thus accused that Bells would misinterpret you, endangering or upsetting "the quiet life", if you answered correctly. That is to say, ten paragraphs you spent justifying yourself by accusing a woman.) By the time you get to— —you are explicitly fretting against the human rights of a woman. And, in going on to argue a fallacious example— —you only reinforced the prospect that you simply don't understand what you're talking about. It's also worth noting that when you come around to "one-size-fits-all"↗, the point you try to make in #36↑ above doesn't work because what it refers to, your response to Cluelusshusbund, is an attempt to evade a simple and straightforward acknowledgment of her human rights, resulting in a formulation that you still describe what she is allowed. If you presume her human rights, you don't need to explain what you would allow because that question goes away. So, yes, James, not only did you assert a position at odds with an affirmative acknowledgment of the humanity and human rights of women, you insisted, over multiple posts, in excess of three weeks, and even to the point of issuing an infraction and splintering out a thread in order to protect your politics and pride.
No. It was not. It is, in fact, legal in some places to provide a woman with an abortion for no reason other than her choice 1 day before birth. However, that does not mean that such an abortion would actually be provided by the medical professionals who usually carry out the procedure. I was, and remain, factually correct. Your lies are the make-believe. The "someone" you refer to was Bells. Can't you say her name? I did not "duck it". That is another lie. I replied directly. My reply is in post #16 of this thread. Bells then followed up with post #18, and I replied at length in posts #27 and #28, addressing all of the matters she had raised. You are deliberately misrepresenting my position. It is no way the same as refusing recognition of the right to choose an abortion. Call that a "woman's human right" if you like. I have been very clear that I support a woman's right to choose. At no time have I refused to recognise that right. The title of the thread is "Most Americans say abortion should be legal". This started off as a discussion about whether and to what extent abortion should be legally permitted. Here's what I said about that, again: In short, my opinion is that the law, as it is in practice, is a blunt instrument to rely on in this particular area. The actual decision making should be left up to women, in consultation with relevant medical professionals, not to the minutiae of some black letter text in a statute. This is an argument for selecting the "legal in all circumstances" option in the poll, and I considered selecting it for that reason. On the other hand, the poll question asks about the "should", so one way to interpret it is to ask whether, given appropriate wording of the relevant laws, should abortion really be available in all circumstances? For instance, we might ask whether it should be available (legal) if it will clearly endanger the life of the mother? Or, as Seattle suggested, should it be available one day before natural birth, at the request of the mother (because it is her legal right to request it), even if the unborn child is perfectly healthy? I do not think it should be, in these circumstances. So that's how I ended up answering the poll. To be clear, then: in practice, it might very well make no difference whether a statute grants a general right to abortion in all circumstances or whether it grants such a right in all but a small selection of very specific circumstances, because how the law is applied in practice might well be the same, either way. But the poll question need not be interpreted in the context of how the current practice of providing for abortion is actually done. The question asks about "should" and "all". That means it is asking a moral question about an unspecified set of all possible circumstances. I replied to that, too. I wrote: I'm very happy to address false narratives, of course, if it becomes relevant. I was just explaining why I chose one option over another. My choice in no way depended on believing a false narrative. I am very confident that you and I share all the same concerns about false narratives and women being denied bodily autonomy, and all of that. I'm very happy to discuss those things if you like. I may or may not be as happy to discuss this further with a man who has proven himself to be a habitual and unrepentant liar, who goes out of his way to troll me at every opportunity. You should understand that, if nothing else. I never dithered for the sake of a false narrative. The only relevant false narrative here is yours. There's nothing nebulous about it. I specifically addressed by comments to Bells at the time and referred to her as the sort of person I worried might take offence. I did not at any time accuse. How's this: I accuse you of being an unrepentant, serial liar. No. I was correct. It is not ridiculous, your lies notwithstanding. If you had any personal integrity, you would consider the matter yourself. Perhaps, in fact, you have considered it, but you can't bring yourself to admit that I'm obviously correct. There is nothing fallacious about that example. Everything I wrote is correct and your attempts to allege some mistake without actually identifying what the error is simple confirm that you are trolling. You demand answers from me, but you never commit to anything yourself. Either you don't understand what I was talking about, or else you do understand and you're trolling. I'd bet my house on the latter. Here's the question I asked cluelusshusbund: Do you want literal abortion on demand at any stage of the pregnancy, even in cases where it would be possibly to safely delivery a perfectly healthy child? Tell us whether this is what you want, Tiassa. Answer the question. Don't try to dodge by merely asserting, like a troll, that the question itself "doesn't work". And don't ignore it like a troll. No. It says nothing about a woman's human rights. In fact, I'm coming around to the view that perhaps you don't actually understand what human rights are, now. Right now, in places where abortion is readily available and fully legal, there are already practical restrictions on "what she is allowed". A woman's rights do not extend to her having the right to compel another person to assist her in procuring an abortion. Perhaps you think they should. No. There is always the question of what those rights are and how far they should or do extend. Rights never involve a single individual in isolation from other people. Rights are something that societies grant to other people. Nobody's rights are absolute. Your point about "human beings" was a silly distraction from the start. Woman are human beings. That is a biological fact that I have never come within a mile of denying. So, it's an irrelevant distraction. Now you are trying to shift the goal posts to refer instead to the "humanity" of women. I assume you want to try to sneak in something about rights under the rug, without actually committing yourself to anything specific. You want to equivocate so that you can tell more lies later. My position on abortion is not at odds with human rights. I am pro-choice. I support the right of women to choose to have an abortion. I have been very clear. I support the right of women to choose an abortion, if you want to put it in those terms. Do I think abortion should be legal? Yes, I do, in most circumstances. In the American context, I think the best thing to do is probably to make it legal in all circumstances. That will not lead to the best outcomes in all circumstance, of course, but given the history of this debate in the United States and how fraught it all is over there, I think it would be best if the legal situation is as simple and clear as possible. I look forward to hearing your opinions on these matters. Try talking about what you think for a change, instead of trying to take me down. And no more lies!
Tiassa: While you're at it, answer the questions I asked earlier: Should abortion be available at the mother's demand in circumstances where it will clearly endanger the life of the mother? (What if it is almost certain to kill her?) Should abortion be available at the mother's demand one day before natural birth, even in circumstances where the unborn child is perfectly healthy and could be delivered safely ? Should there be legislation to make it clear that abortion on demand is legal in such circumstances - i.e. legislate a "right" of the mother to demand abortion in these circumstances? Note: if your answer to the last question here is "no", then you can't honestly select the "legal in all circumstances" option in the poll. You will need to be inconsistent and tell a lie.
Actually, you're wrong about that part. The third question describes something unnecessary, as such. I probably wouldn't object, but there remains a question of why we would need a law to assert this particular right. (Think about rights like speech and privacy, and what legislation about them actually does. Also, bear in mind that in this context, we're not talking about abstractions, but rights established under the U.S. Constitution. Even the question of quartering troops ought to make the point.) As to the other questions, sure, but you're going to need to explain the first. And the second, you're just reiterating what you've already been told is wrong↑. But, yes. Now, then, what is this circumstance you describe, when an abortion "will clearly endanger the life of the mother"? And because it's important, just how would that danger compare to birth? I mean, since you're not making it up—(¿right?)—you should be able to tell us a little more about this diagnosis and how it works.
That word game is an extraordinarily stupid mess. Legal. The circumstance you describe does not make an abortion illegal. Yes, I even did ("… you told Bells, and thus accused that Bells would misinterpret you …"). Did you stop to think about that before you wrote the question? James, your reply at #16↑ ducked. These word games are stupid. The fact that you said something, i.e., post #16, does not preclude ducking the point. And inasmuch as "Bells then followed up with post #18", I would reiterate, take the advice you were given: "When faced with said false narrative, don't 'dither' based on the 'practicalities'. Actually address the false narrative that is being used to force women to remain pregnant." Remember, your "reply" in #16 was, "That's essentially what I said. While abortion might be 'legal', it might not be allowed, in practice." Neither of those sentences makes any sense in response to the point, "This does not actually happen". Stop. Sarkus↗ went through this with you, already. It wasn't until after↗ that you finally went and put on a big show of recognizing and affirming the humanity and human rights of women. James, that's a different question than the human rights of women, and you managed to make the point for me: "I do not think it should be, in these circumstances. So that's how I ended up answering the poll." In other words, you didn't take the advice. James: • "I did dither for a while, because even though it could be legal to allow an abortion for no reason other than the woman's choice 1 day before birth, that would not necessarily mean it would be possible to arrange such an abortion for that reason at that time in practice." (#5↑) And what did Bells tell you in #18↑? Actually, what you said is that you 'dithered' on the point when discussing the legality of it when responding to Seattle's comments about whether it meant it would be legal for a woman to abort her baby the day before it's due to be delivered. But think about your response. Instead of correcting a ridiculous notion, you advised that was why you voted as you did. In every sense, women aren't aborting a day before it's due. That argument is always used to muddy the waters and sets a false narrative. So, right, you dithered for the sake of a false narrative. "Nebulous" actually credits the word "people", as in, "people such as yourself", according to the prospect that you actually meant more people than just Bells, herself. Right, I see: You simply "referred to her as the sort of person I worried might take offence". Yes, petulance is convincing. Compared to what you were responding to, it was more of a change of subject: James R: I voted the same way, for the same reason. I did dither for a while, because even though it could be legal to allow an abortion for no reason other than the woman's choice 1 day before birth, that would not necessarily mean it would be possible to arrange such an abortion for that reason at that time in practice. Bells: So a reminder about late term abortions and the whole 'aborting a day before it's due or during childbirth, etc'.. This does not actually happen, even where abortion is available and legal "in all circumstances". James: R That's essentially what I said. While abortion might be "legal", it might not be allowed, in practice. Bells: Actually, what you said is that you 'dithered' on the point when discussing the legality of it when responding to Seattle's comments about whether it meant it would be legal for a woman to abort her baby the day before it's due to be delivered. But think about your response. Instead of correcting a ridiculous notion, you advised that was why you voted as you did. James R: It's not ridiculous to consider what could happen, in legal terms, if a woman complained that she was denied her unfettered right to an abortion by a medical professional, if indeed the law conveyed such a right. "It's ridiculous to not consider …", doesn't fit; previously you were explaining the boundaries you would apply. Simply insisting doesn't change the facts. An organ is not pregnancy. I mean, even you can figure that out. [1/2]
No, James, you're just far too full of yourself. Well, it's just so stupid. But, yes, I support the right to literal abortion on demand. James, let's just review this part: I said, "an attempt to evade a simple and straightforward acknowledgment of her human rights"; you said, "No. It says nothing about a woman's human rights." Hardly surprising. The general and the particular, James. The question of how you would limit her rights, James, goes away if you acknowledge and affirm those rights. In this context, "Nobody's rights are absolute", is meaningless fluff. Actually, James, it is derived from years of abortion politics in the United States in which we repeatedly separated what is women's from everything else. Like women's health care; it doesn't really matter that men don't need it, but apparently we need to stop and argue, as a society, about whether health care that pertains to women in particular is necessary because men don't need it. Another is quite simply that American politicians would discuss a woman's rights, and it was so ingrained that you could ask them about human rights and they would answer by talking about women's rights. So, there are reasons to include women's humanity in the consideration, even if you didn't know. What's that about the goal posts? James, do you just say stuff because it sounds like an argument? The problem is the part where accepting this tale requires looking past limitations and false narratives. It's one thing if you want to clarify, but don't try to pretend you have been clear throughout. Whatever you say, James. Whatever you say. James, I'm the same as I've been on these issues for years. You look forward to hearing my opinions? Apparently you've been missing them over the course of years. Skip the platitudes. As to lying, James, look: Your insupportable insistence does not overcome the evidence. [2/2]
The entirety of your most recent replies is a stupid mess of word games. That's hardly an extraordinary occurrence when it comes to your posts, though.
How interesting to learn that you've suddenly remembered half of our joint 20+ history of reading each other's posts on this forum. Now, with half the job done, perhaps you can dredge your memory for the other half.
There is a lot of talk in this thread about rights, so I'd like to say something about what rights are and how they work. One important distinction is the one between legal rights and moral rights. A legal right is a power or privilege granted by the law of a state or nation and possessed by an individual, that allows the individual to perform certain actions or refrain from performing certain actions. Every legal right imposes corresponding legal duties on other people that constrain what they can do in respect of the person who is exercising the legal right. Examples of legal rights include civil rights (e.g. the right to freedom of speech), criminal rights (e.g. the right to legal representation), human rights (e.g. the right to personal liberty) and constitutional rights (rights that limit government power). Legal rights are enforced by state-backed authorities and can be legally challenged in courts. A moral right is an ethical principle that attempts to define what is morally acceptable conduct. Moral rights are not codified in law. They are based on assumed universal ethical guidelines. Moral rights are not legally enforceable, but they shape societal norms and individual behaviour. Like legal rights, moral rights impose corresponding duties on other people; however, they are moral duties (ethical obligations) rather than legal obligations. Examples of moral rights include such things as the right to be told the truth, the right to have one's autonomy respected, the right to be treated kindly and with empathy. --- The topic of this thread concerns the question of whether abortion should be legal. If we couch the question in terms of legal rights, it becomes "Should women have the legal right to obtain an abortion?" Suppose that we answer this question with "yes, they should". This implies that we will impose certain legal duties on other people. For instance, everybody has a legal duty to refrain from preventing a woman from obtaining an abortion. It may, in fact, be a crime to prevent an abortion under certain circumstances. Once it is decided that women should have a legal right to obtain an abortion, the question of legal rights becomes more complicated. Is the legal right to an abortion to be unrestricted, or are there to be restrictions on the right, codified or in the common law that establishes the right? Or, in terms of the poll question of this thread, will the right to an abortion be conferred in all circumstances, in most circumstances or in only a few circumstances? In real-world practice, the legal right to abortion is almost always restricted. That was true in the United States under Roe v Wade. It is true in the UK, where abortion is lawful only if specific criteria are met. It is true in Australia where, again, there are specific criteria that must be satisfied for the legal right to exist. In circumstances where abortion is legal (where the legal right to an abortion exists), legal duties are placed on other people. For instance, in the UK, healthcare professionals are required to provide patients with objective and non-judgmental care. A doctor is not obliged to carry out an abortion, but if he objects he must inform the patient promptly and make arrangements for another doctor to take over care of the patient. --- The point of all this is that talking in vague terms about, say, "a woman's human rights" says essentially nothing about what you believe about the right to obtain an abortion. Are you talking about legal rights or moral rights? Are you talking about unlimited rights or restricted ones (like the ones we actually see legislated in the real world)? In a thread about the legality of abortion, if we're going to talk about rights, we should be talking about legal rights. We need to think about what duties we are going to put on people, how the right is going to be protected (by law) and how attempts to frustrate or prevent the exercise of the right will be dealt with (e.g. punished as crimes).
You are, of course, referring to a period that is much like we see in the present, riddled with prevarication, evasion, forgetfulness, and ignorance. James, you're the one who doesn't remember what you've said and done. Hell, you even fired me over it.
Except that your extreme example does not actually exist in reality. You literally queried one option of the poll, because of the 'what if she decides to abort' just before birth or during birth. This doesn't actually happen. And you accuse me of being silly for pointing out that your argument for limitations was based on a fallacy, one that is pushed by the right? The turducken joke is one based on such a fallacy - to the point of being absolutely ridiculous - 'what if she decides to push the baby back in during childbirth?'. This is the kind of rubbish we've been privy to for years on this site when it comes to abortion. We do not need "extreme examples" about abortion, particularly about abortion debates, Seattle. Because those "extreme examples" are being used to deny women their fundamental human rights. On the one hand, what you and others did in that thread was pure trolling. But on the other hand, there is something to be said for a bunch of men having to resort to "extreme examples" to determine how to limit a woman's rights to her own body. It's pathetic. One of the reasons abortion debates always become complete shit-shows on this site and in the general public forum that is the world, in politics and every single other platform, is because there's always people who feel the need to delve into the obscene and the ridiculous to try to justify denying rights to women. It's akin to a flat earther trolling people in the Earth Sciences forum. It wouldn't be allowed. But when it comes to this particular debate and discussion, you all get a pass. It always follows a particular pattern. Make the ridiculous assertion or "extreme examples", be called out on it, usually by women who are unfortunate enough to have to witness men such as yourself debate our rights, and then have a bunch more men rock up complaining about being called out. Then we get the gaslighting, of how you support a woman's right to choose - ignoring how you have openly resorted to "extreme examples" that cannot and do not exist in reality, to attempt to impose limits on those rights. Each and every single time. So, let me reiterate. We don't need "extreme examples" for you to determine whether we should have rights over our own bodies or not. It shouldn't even be part of the discussion. If you cannot discuss the issue of human rights of women without resorting to "extreme examples", then that's on you and your inability to debate the issue like an adult. I have often wondered about why this always happens. I guess there are a few reasons why. One is stupidity. Second is simply to troll. Third could be that people who pull this shit are so insecure that they need to remind women that yes, we have rights, but you are all in the absolute position to limit those rights as you see fit and if it means inventing scenarios to do it, then so be it. In other words, our human rights relies upon your good graces and whatever mood you're all in.
This reads as if you have a big chip on your shoulder. I didn't "debate" anything. I responded to a poll started by James. If you don't like the use of "extreme" exceptions" read in any reasonable exception that might apply. Neither I, nor anyone else here, was arguing against a woman's right to choose. Why alienate those who voted for a woman's right to choose by implying that they are stupid, trolling, gaslighting, insecure or some other such nonsense? Your unhinged rant comes off more as trolling than as any kind of reasoned response. When someone else on here responded to you I believe you said that they were just accusing you of being an angry black woman. Sure, lets bring in race for no reason as well. If this is how you deal with those who agree with you, I'd hate to see how you deal with those who disagree with you. Let's bring in white supremacism while we're at it, white privilege, systemic racism, micro-aggression, maybe we can work in something about non-binary, fluid gender and something about being a victim? What is the criteria for being a moderator on here?
So far, all the discussion in this thread has been about women's bodily autonomy. In my opinion, the autonomy argument is a very strong one for permitting access to abortion in all circumstances. However, I also think that the debate about abortion cannot be solely about women's rights to bodily autonomy, because there is, in most cases, another life at stake. On that question, first let me be clear that I am not at all interested in talking about silly questions about "when does life begin?" An unfertilised ovum is alive, and so are isolated spermatozoa. All cells in the human body are alive, so saying something like "life begins at conception" is just unhelpfully misleading. On the other hand, the question of "at what stage in development is it reasonable to regard a human foetus/baby as a person who has some human rights?" is a relevant one. This is one of the questions that the court grappled with in Roe v Wade. Many philosophers and scientists like to draw the line based on notions of consciousness (the ability to perceive oneself as a separate being) and/or sentience (the ability to experience pain). If there is to be a line in the process of development of a baby, beyond which we must morally consider the rights of the child, then there are more and less defensible places to draw such a line. For instance, it makes very little sense to draw the line at the moment of conception, because at a conception although there is a full set of human DNA in a bunch of cells, there is no sentience or consciousness. It makes slightly more sense to draw the line at birth, where there are clear indications that the baby is both sentient (to a high degree) and conscious to some degree. But then, what about the day before birth? What about in the last trimester of pregnancy, more generally? What about when the foetal heartbeat starts for the first time? A problem for people who are highly focussed on the bodily autonomy argument is that they can tend to downplay the potential personhood of the baby that is involved. So, I'd like you to consider a thought experiment. Suppose that, some time in the future, artificial womb technology advances to the point where it is fully viable to fertilise an ovum inside or outside the womb and then "grow" and "birth" the child entirely outside the mother's body. Suppose, in addition, that it becomes possible to safety remove a developing foetus or baby from a woman's uterus and transplant it into an artificial womb, at any stage during the pregnancy, with no danger to the life of the mother or child. In these circumstances - let me be clear - I would fully support the mother's choice to ask, at any stage of the pregnancy, that her baby be removed from her body and transplanted into an artificial womb for the remainder of the pregnancy. This would recognise her right to decide what happens to her body. Here's the question: in these circumstances, would there be anything wrong with the mother (or somebody else) requesting that an artificial womb be turned off, thereby causing the death of the unborn foetus/baby? Let us assume that the developing foetus is normal and viable. If somebody holds the opinion that unborn foetuses/babies aren't in any way "people" and so have no moral rights, then it would follow that they should also have no legal rights. It could not ever be wrong to switch off an artificial womb - at any stage of the child's development (before "birth"). On the other hand, if a foetus does attain personhood at - picking an arbitrary time - 30 weeks into its development, prior to birth, then we are forced to conclude that it would be morally wrong to switch off the artificial womb after that time, because doing so would be killing an innocent person. And, if it's morally wrong, perhaps it should also be legally forbidden. In the case of the artificial womb, there is only one (possible) person's rights we need to consider - in terms of the "right to life", anyway. Only the baby will be affected by the decision to turn off or not to turn off. Coming back to the present, real-world, situation, however, in which the only location a child can develop is in a woman's uterus, we are still faced with the question of whether it is morally permissible for the mother to "turn off the machine" at any time, so to speak. In this case (i.e. present reality), if we recognise that the unborn child gains a "right to life" at some stage during its development, then we must weigh up the rights of the mother (e.g. to bodily autonomy) against the competing right to life of the unborn child. That is, we must now consider the rights of not one, but two persons. Under these circumstances, there will be, in my opinion, certain situations - especially in the later stages of pregnancy, when the child could be safely birthed (or removed by caesarian section) and cared for externally until it is sufficiently developed to live without external life support, in which it will be morally wrong for the mother to demand an abortion (which will kill the unborn child). And, if there are circumstances in which an abortion would be morally wrong, then an argument can be made that it should not legally be permitted in those circumstances, either. If somebody believes that the mother's right to bodily autonomy should always supercede any right an unborn child might have - or if they believe that unborn children are not persons and so ought to have no recognised rights at all - then obviously they will insist that women's rights to an abortion should be completely unrestricted. If that's your position, so be it. I am personally inclined to disagree with you. Now, the obligatory caveats: In practice, currently laws surrounding abortion differ from place to place. Some are more restrictive than others about the availability of abortion; some essentially outlaw it, either explicitly or in practical terms. Also, even if laws are written in the most permissive way possible, to make abortion legal in all circumstances, that does not necessarily mean that abortion will be made available to a woman in all circumstances. In my opinion, since it is very difficult to specify, ahead of time, how any competing moral interests should be weighed up, I think it is best that abortion law errs on the side of permissivity, rather than legal restriction. Medical professionals can help pregnant women to make difficult decisions on a case-by-case basis, and make difficult decisions themselves for time to time. In every case, the mother's preferences should be taken seriously and given careful consideration. However, if unborn children have any rights at all, it can't just be "whatever the mother wants goes". Finally, I want to say that, I believe that for the majority of women considering an abortion, the decision is not taken lightly. Women typically weigh up lots of different factors in making the decision. I believe that it is not appropriate for anybody else (medical professional or otherwise) to overrule a woman's decision to have an abortion, except in extraordinary circumstances. And - before the inevitable complaints come flooding in - I am not going to attempt to enumerate exactly what those "special circumstances" might be, in advance. If I could do that, I would not have already said that I think it may be best, in practice, to frame laws in the most permissive way. I will be happy to share my opinions about any particular scenarios that are put to me. I anticipate, since this is such a hot button issue, that some of the responses to this will be angry reactions, accusing me of wanting to control women or deny them their human rights, or similar. Before you accuse me of that (again, in some cases), make sure you clarify your own views on the human rights of the unborn child - if you think they have any at all. What should happens when there is a conflict? Maybe it's "the mother is always right, no matter what, because it's her body." If so, fine, that's your opinion and you don't need to get angry about it. Just recognise that I don't share your opinion. But, who knows? Maybe you can change my mind, if I'm wrong about this, as always. Maybe - heaven forbid! - we could even meet half way on this and reach a consensus?
The woman always has a right to bodily autonomy. And children always have a right to life. When a fetus is nonviable, the right to abortion is protected to ensure the rights of the women. (Well, it used to be, at least.) After the child is born it has all the rights to live its life as any other human. In between is the big question. And since it's not clear cut - there are almost as many unusual situations as there are unwanted pregnancies - in those cases it should be up to the women and their doctor. Not because a 39 week old fetus does not have any rights - but because it is such an ambiguous moral area that the people who are closest to the decision are the people who should make it. Add the doctor in there and I'd say whatever THEY want, goes. The doctor is not carrying the baby - but doctors play a critical role in this process because they are a reality check for the mother. They allow an informed decision. And since everyone above is going on and on about "what about X" "X never happens you idiot!" - they do. I've seen some of them. Most of them don't get talked about for obvious reasons.
I agree that they help with providing an informed decision, but I'm not sure it is correct to word it as being their (woman and doctor) decision. The doctor can inform, of course, but if they disagree with the woman's course of action strongly enough to withhold their care/support/expertise etc, then they have the ability to do just that. While in practice the decision a woman makes might be in agreement with the medical professional, agreeing with someone is not the same as it being a joint decision with joint responsibility etc, which is what your "whatever THEY want, goes" suggests it to be. Unless, of course, you really do mean that it is not up to the woman alone? That you think women can only make a choice that is supported by medical professionals? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Change in the voting. It is now 12 votes to zero in favour of a woman's right to bodily autonomy. Some posters left room for that 1%, probably because smart people are not comfortable with absolutes.
I voted "always" because it's easier I think not because I am smarter (see above) Anyway since the thread has taken to sniping mainly, I will bow out.
Exactly. The doctor has to agree. They are the last line of defense against a woman who really is acting against both her own and the fetus's self interest. In reality this is almost never a barrier.
I'm the sole woman debating a bunch of men who are trying to determine what rights I, as a woman, should have over my own body. And you wonder why I might have a 'chip on my shoulder'? Think about it, Seattle. Think hard. It's not really that hard to imagine why women end up with chips on our shoulders when we discuss this issue. Because each and every single time abortion is brought up, it follows the exact same pattern. A bunch of men discussing how to limit our fundamental human rights to our own bodies. You weren't voting for a woman's right to choose. You voted to limit those rights for reasons you saw fit - which amounted to creating an extreme scenario. I am not the one who is unhinged here and I am getting pretty fed up with being accused of sounding unhinged. Firstly, it's sexist and secondly, it's downright stupid. What's interesting to me is why you felt you should vote on this issue at all. Abortion is a health issue, and should never ever be a political issue. It truly is as simple as that. But because it has become a political issue, it is now a human rights issue and in many parts of the world, particularly in the US, lack of access to essential healthcare for women is now a human rights issue. Let's consider why it is a human rights issue and why this only impacts and affects women. Let's look at Alabama as a prime example. It was only men who voted for banning abortion in the state. Let that sink in for a moment. It was only men who voted for limiting the human rights of women and only women. As I noted in my previous post. The human rights of women is wholly dependent on men. By limiting or voting to limit our access to essential health services and which wholly impacts our rights over our own bodies, people such as yourself, are merely reminding us of the fact that you are in control and you can limit our rights over our own bodies depending on whatever mood you're in. If your mood is to create an "extreme example", then so be it, you vote to limit our rights over our own bodies based on whatever sick and weird fantasy you decide to come up with. And you ask why I might have a chip on my shoulder? Interesting, no? You accuse me of ranting because how dare I pull you up on your extreme example that is often used to limit our fundamental human rights... Really, it's not that hard to imagine why I and many many other women have a chip on our shoulder when it comes to this topic. It's not that hard to figure out why. I'll be blunt. You're a white dude. You will never have to face what others who are not white males are forced to face. Your rights to your bodily autonomy will never be questioned or denied and you'll never have people determining if you really should be allowed to have rights over your own body. Must be nice!
