"Women are Hosts"

In principle I agree with you. But what if the woman became pregnant as a result of being raped?

I'm not a woman, but I'm quite sure I wouldn't want to have that baby.

It's a horrible scenario, because that life is not to blame, and has much a right to being born as every other life.

Jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It speaks to that question but is not a complete answer. There are many circumstances in which you can kill someone and have it not be murder.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Your question (to Bells) was:

Let's leave aside for the moment the question of what her bodily rights supercede or acquiesce to.

Presumably, a person attains all the legal rights to their body that they're ever going to have the moment they become an adult, and are no longer a ward of their parents, or some other agency.
(Regardless of what those rights might be)

I erred by answering a question you posed to Bells, but I thought this went without saying.

 

This is one of the issues in American politics where nearly all the questions being asked are the wrong questions - i.e., the whole wrong approach.
There is no satisfactory end-point.
If you thought of the situation, not as a contest to be won and lost, but as a problem to be solved, you could probably find a solution that - while never satisfying the extremists, who, by definition cannot be satisfied - would work for most people most of the time.
What is the problem?
Unwanted pregnancy. Unwanted babies.
What are possible solutions, considering:
1. encroachment on individual liberty
2. cost/benefit ratio to society - long and short term
3. risk to the participant(s)
4. difficulty of procedure
5. difficulty of enforcement/compliance
6. cost/benefit assessment of non-compliance
7. desirability of outcome
- then factor in
8. legal obstacles
9. economic obstacles

In America, this problem can no more be solved that the one of rampant obesity - because Americans don't want to address the cause of their problems.
They just like to argue around and around and around the surface details. The colour of HMS Titanic deck-chairs....

 

Shoud a woman have the right to make the decision on whether or not to abort the baby... an i say yes... period.!!!

Perty simple really.!!!

 

If the religious pro-life folks actually believed a human embryo was a human being, a person with rights, there would be a whole lot more little graves in the church cemeteries. And religious hospitals would have been handling miscarriages much differently, for centuries now.

If rightwing folks actually believed that a human embryo was a human being, a person with rights, there would be a radical difference in the way industrial toxins that cause miscarriages are handled by custom and by law under rightwing governance.

And so forth.

Meanwhile, the notion that a human being - any human being - has an inalienable right to the inside of someone else's body, is an odd one.

 

Sure, that part is. Of-bloody-course she ought to have that right, since nobody has the right to force her to any course of action regarding her own biological functions.
(including non-consensual sex, even with a lawfully wedded husband)
Just as nobody has the right to force a person to keep living when he wants to die. But people argue endlessly about that, too.
There are always factions in a society that believe they are defending someone by attacking someone else.
Meanwhile, the actual social problem doesn't get solved, regardless of which faction 'wins', because the causes are never addressed.

 

Nobody has a "right to being born". A right is something an informed, enfranchised, autonomous and legally competent person may exercise, if they are able to.
'Loretta', in Life of Brian does not have a right to bear children, because she 'asn't got a womb. I do not have a right to fly an airplane, because I haven't got a pilot's license. My friend Roberta has no right to compete in the Olympics, because she hasn't got any athletic ability.
A foetus has no rights to anything, since it cannot do anything. It cannot decide anything. It is incapable of informed consent.
The utterly dependent, such as infants, prisoners and captive animals, may be offered specified protections by society.
The debate over abortion is simply a question of how far those protections should apply. Moving it into the realm of human rights is just part of the pretense.

 

Sure, that part is simple. Nobody ought to be able to force anybody to act against their self-interest. Just as nobody ought to have a right to force anyone to live who wants to die.
But we argue endlessly about that, too.
Because there is that grey zone between rights and protections.
Society generally takes on the responsibility of protecting the powerless. You're not allowed to strangle a senile grandparent or a squalling toddler.
So the argument is really over how far protections of one group encroach on the rights of another group.
This is where negotiation would work better than confrontation.

 

The opening argument an focus for those issues shoud always be... who do you want to have control over you'r body... an if not you... then who???... an let the chips fall whare they may.!!!

 

A women's right to her body, when it comes to pregnancy, does not address the rights of the men. Half the DNA in the unborn, comes from the male, yet the male has no say when it come to abortion or life. If the women chooses life, the male still has no rights, but has to be pay and become slave labor. Law is not just imposing restrictions on women, but it also imposes restrictions on men, when it comes to child rights. Child rights are considered more important, than adult rights; men and women's right. Pregnancy is preventable. If it is not prevented, you void your rights, just like the men. Women need to man up and not expect a free ride.

 

Brilliant!

Are you a Nobel prize winning scientist and astronaut? I can feel you care so much.

 

Cancelled

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

That last bit is not the way law, legislature and societies work.
You may want to do a lot of things that society would prefer you not do and often insists you not do, with your own body. And there are things you need done to and for your body that requires the co-operation of other people. For example, very few self-administered tooth extractions, tattoos and abortions have turned out well.
Every society needs to figure out how much litter it can tolerate, and who is going to pick up those fallen chips.
However, the decisions are made quite a lot easier if a society formulates some agreed-on principles whereby certain kinds of activity are governed, so that when the rights of individuals conflict with one another, there is an established procedure for resolving the conflict. A degree of consensus is very helpful in these matters.
These questions very soon need to be addressed in regard to the uses of DNA, so we really ought to move on.

(PS Sorry about duplicate post above; thought I'd lost the first one.)

 

The circumstances which are not murder are not relevant. If you claim that killing a fetus is murder, how can you differentiate one murder from another?

 

Does it not seem at odds with reason that the same faction that puts all the onus for pregnancy on women, and also forbids them terminating unwanted pregnancy,
should also
oppose sex education in school, easy access to birth control and funding perinatal health care?

 

Not new but a grand idea an here we still are.!!!
For a change id like to see the argument simplified to... "who do you want to have control over you'r body... an if not you... then who???"... insted of WWJD an argue bible scriptures... or argue when does life begin bs.!!!

Its just a continuation of bible vs people which is decided at the votin booth an will be that way for as long as superstition is still popular.!!!