"It's my body, my choice" doesn't count if another life is invovled.

[Czernobog]

Doesn't it? Really? You see, we have a legal precedent in this country known as "bodily autonomy". Because of this precedent, you cannot force me to donate blood, even if it is necessary to save a life. Similarly, you cannot harvest the organs of a corpse without the prior consent of the person, before they died. Even a corpse is allowed bodily autonomy.

To insist that a person give up their bodily autonomy for nine months during an expensive, invasive, often life threatening procedure is immoral, unethical, and illegal. You are attempting to demand that women surrender the bodily autonomy that we afford to corpses. Really??????

You analogy is flawed. Your blood... your organs....

A new genetically distinct human being is not your body.

It is a human being with inalienable rights. One of which is the right to life.

Haven't you ever heard of being held accountable for your actions?

Except that the woman is expected to give her blood, even her health for the upkeep of that "human being". No one has the right that a woman must provide her body for the preservation of another's life. That is the very essence of bodily autonomy.

 

[Czernobog]

"My body, my choice" doesn't mean squat. If some shithead murders a pregnant woman and the baby also dies, said shithead can be charged with two murders.

That was an idiotic legal precedent deliberately pursued to undermine individual rights.

Whose "individual rights"? The right of the murdered woman, the murdered baby, or the murderer?

If abortion is "murder", then so is refusing to donate blood in an emergency, or donating an organ. One does not have the right to dictate that a person sacrifice their body for the well-being of another person. This is the essence of bodily autonomy.

 

[ding]

Doesn't it? Really? You see, we have a legal precedent in this country known as "bodily autonomy". Because of this precedent, you cannot force me to donate blood, even if it is necessary to save a life. Similarly, you cannot harvest the organs of a corpse without the prior consent of the person, before they died. Even a corpse is allowed bodily autonomy.

To insist that a person give up their bodily autonomy for nine months during an expensive, invasive, often life threatening procedure is immoral, unethical, and illegal. You are attempting to demand that women surrender the bodily autonomy that we afford to corpses. Really??????

You analogy is flawed. Your blood... your organs....

A new genetically distinct human being is not your body.

It is a human being with inalienable rights. One of which is the right to life.

Haven't you ever heard of being held accountable for your actions?

Except that the woman is expected to give her blood, even her health for the upkeep of that "human being". No one has the right that a woman must provide her body for the preservation of another's life. That is the very essence of bodily autonomy.

Yes, that's exactly what happens when someone has sex and gets pregnant. The new genetically distinct human being that she created that has never existed before and will never exist again had no say in the matter. She did. It's called consequences. This may be a foreign concept to you.

 

[dblack]

If abortion is "murder", then so is refusing to donate blood in an emergency, or donating an organ. One does not have the right to dictate that a person sacrifice their body for the well-being of another person. This is the essence of bodily autonomy.

Which is the essence of individual liberty. The government doesn't own the people. It's the other way around.

 

[SSGT Bags]

Doesn't it? Really? You see, we have a legal precedent in this country known as "bodily autonomy". Because of this precedent, you cannot force me to donate blood, even if it is necessary to save a life. Similarly, you cannot harvest the organs of a corpse without the prior consent of the person, before they died. Even a corpse is allowed bodily autonomy.

To insist that a person give up their bodily autonomy for nine months during an expensive, invasive, often life threatening procedure is immoral, unethical, and illegal. You are attempting to demand that women surrender the bodily autonomy that we afford to corpses. Really??????

OK, you will NOT understand this, bet here is my shot.
PRO CHOICE means when you decided to fuck somebody, YOU made that choice.
The repercussions of that choice is that YOU got pregnant and are now carrying a HUMAN LIFE inside of you.
You SHOULD have CHOSEN not to get drunk and pick up two tooth Homer in that bar.
All of our actions have consequences, and abortion is NOT birth control.
ABORTION IS MURDER, PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

 

[dblack]

Doesn't it? Really? You see, we have a legal precedent in this country known as "bodily autonomy". Because of this precedent, you cannot force me to donate blood, even if it is necessary to save a life. Similarly, you cannot harvest the organs of a corpse without the prior consent of the person, before they died. Even a corpse is allowed bodily autonomy.

To insist that a person give up their bodily autonomy for nine months during an expensive, invasive, often life threatening procedure is immoral, unethical, and illegal. You are attempting to demand that women surrender the bodily autonomy that we afford to corpses. Really??????

OK, you will NOT understand this, bet here is my shot.
PRO CHOICE means when you decided to fuck somebody, YOU made that choice.
The repercussions of that choice is that YOU got pregnant and are now carrying a HUMAN LIFE inside of you.
You SHOULD have CHOSEN not to get drunk and pick up two tooth Homer in that bar.
All of our actions have consequences, and abortion is NOT birth control.
ABORTION IS MURDER, PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

But the question is whether it should be treated as murder legally. Should pregnant women who fail to bring their child to term be treated as murderers? And that brings up some very subtle, anything but plain and simple, questions. It's basically a claim that, by becoming pregnant, a woman has entered into contract with the state to bring that child to term. Or at least to do nothing that might jeopardize a successful birth. It establishes the internal state of a woman's body as a valid concern of government. That seems to me like a dangerous line to cross.