Pro-Choice or Anti-Rape?

[snjmom]

If I would die without your kidney, can I make you give it to me? For free?

 

[PJzaBruin]

The right for you to swing your fist stops somewhere before your fist contacts my nose.

Until a fetus achieves viability, it has no rights, as it is NOT yet an organism. It is more a part of the host body -- the pregnant woman -- who would then have all the rights.

 

[PJzaBruin]

Oh yeah... my answer to the poll question is BOTH.

 

[emilynghiem]

Do you believe in a man's right to choose what he does and control his own body, or do you believe your right to do as you will does not extend to harming others?

Dear JB: I believe in consent in all three cases.
1. for a man to choose what he does and control his body
2. for our rights to act not to violate the consent of others
3. for laws we make about these things also to reflect consent of the people affected

(Note: Regarding rape and abortion, in order to write laws that don't criminalize one gender more than another in violation of amendment 14, I have proposed to make a generic law against "relationship abuse" that if any act of sex results in an unwanted pregnancy, unwanted child, or unwanted abortion, reported by either party, then both partners are equally responsible for relationship abuse and are subject to counseling. I believe there should be a separate level of violation besides civil or criminal, similar to a health code violation, where complaints can be issued for dangerous abuses to health.)

in the case of abortion or terminating life before birth,
there is not a consensus religiously YET. If there were general consensus,
such as laws against murder, it would be constitutional to make a law on such issues.

Until there is consensus, there is religious difference or faith or bias involved,
and by our laws, government is not in a position to mandate a religiously biased policy.
This does happen, such as with marriage laws that carry a bias, but where there is dissent the law is challenged just as the laws on abortion were challenged.

In all arguments I have seen regarding abortion, I have not seen consent or equal representation of all views; so technically govt should not be in the business of passing laws on such unresolved religious issues but should require citizens to form a consensus in order for policies to be legit.

If I were a judge and any such conflict was brought before me to decide, I would order the parties bringing the suit to mediate themselves, spell out the points of agreement or disagreement, and agree what points can be legislated and which must be addressed individually through the private sector since there is not agreement across the board to justify one policy. But do not ask govt to make a decision for the people that involves unresolved religious conflicts or bias.
That is not the role of government. Govt should reflect the consent of the people, not make decisions for them, especially when there are diverse views equally protected, where favoring either side would violate the equal religious freedom and representation of the other. I believe consensus is not only possible but legally necessary; but where others don't "believe" in this standard, I would end up imposing on them or them on me. So I have to stay away from politics until there is consensus. I can work on building consensus outside the system, and one day maybe government will reflect that.

P.S. This is another reason why I would avoid public office or position; I believe govt should reflect the consent of the public and to protect and represent all interests equally without discrimination or bias. But it would be self-contradictory to impose such a standard, since by consent it must be chosen freely! In order for consensus even to be possible, all the issues would have to be worked out anyway in private before bringing into the political process to establish public policy. So that is why I work individually on forming consensus, by free and informed choice not by majority-rule. If everyone formed decisions with respect to the consent of others, we would not depend on politicians to go fight battles in a contest to see who can outbully the other to get more votes.
We'd be too busy hashing out real life solutions instead of dividing and debating in theory.

 

[Lumpy 1]

I wish mostly that the abortion issue had been left to the states or local communities. But if it MUST be a federal issue, then I wish for strict enforcement of Roe v Wade which, if its intent was strictly enforced, would be a reasonable compromise. The all or nothing arguments accomplish little more than hard feelings in both the pro choice and pro life camps.

In my opinion, so long as I have ability to choose, I have an unalienable right to do whatever I wish with my body until participation by somebody else is required. My rights end at the point somebody else is required to contribute or participate.

So... how did the baby get there exactly...

I'm thinking the Guys should have a say... I could never live with a women that aborted my child..I just couldn't...I guess that's the only say I have...it sucks...

 

[Lumpy 1]

Do you believe in a man's right to choose what he does and control his own body, or do you believe your right to do as you will does not extend to harming others?

Actually.. I don't get the similarity, other than the rapists balls should be aborted..

 

[editec]

This is a false choice because it is badly worded, I think.

One can certainly have the right to control one's own body without also therefore having the right to violate other's.

One's right to swing one's fist is absolute up to the point it hits another person.

 

[Lumpy 1]

This is a false choice because it is badly worded, I think.

One can certainly have the right to control one's own body without also therefore having the right to violate other's.

One's right to swing one's fist is absolute up to the point it hits another person.

Well .. one ends a human life, the other effects the inner well being for a lifetime, I would guess.. both piss me off though...

 

[syrenn]

Sure is. Does do a good job of exposing the indefensible position many "pro Choicers" hold. It's all about choice to them, just don't mention that many times, the fetus aborted could have been a viable life outside the womb, and had NO CHOICE at all.

Cesarean section what ever it is out, sit it on the table and let it live. No abortion required. If it does not "live" then it is not a viable life.

Science does not agree. Babies Taken out of the womb Many Many weeks early can, and do survive. Yes they require help to do so, but then who are we do deny them that? Take it out and sit it on the table and if it lives it is viable? Really? I disagree, I think if it can be taken from the womb and survive with Medical Care, it was viable. Using your logic Human Beings are not viable until the are old enough to feed themselves. Set a 1 year old on a table and leave them, and they are going to die.

Me personally I have always maintained I support the right to an Abortion in most cases. It is only when I see it abused and used as nothing more than belated Birth control for Irresponsibility chicks, that I have a problem with it.

However that does not keep me from seeing the Hypocrisy of the "pro Choice" people. Often times the same lefties who support your right to an Abortion on the basis of Freedom of Choice. Would be more than happy to tell you, you can not eat fatty foods, and you can not own a gun. Or tell you, it is ok that Union give you no choice about paying dues.

Abortion is always going to be a very Polarizing subject, that is for sure.

In a perfect world it would only be used in extreme cases, and not like it is the VAST MAJORITY of the time in the US. The Vast Majority of Abortions in this country are not carried out because there is some risk to the mother, or Birth Defects to the baby. They are carried out because someone fucked, was not careful and got pregnant, and now they do not want to live with the consequences of the CHOICES they made.

I dont think you would find many here who would advocate late term abortion. Nor am i. I am quite sure that science would agree with me that Cesarean sectioning out 3 month old tissue would not "live" if placed on a table. Feel free to give as much medical care as you would see fit but it will not survive. Therefor as far as i am concerned it is not a viable "life"

I am not speaking about medical care. Many babies can and do need medical care. I am also not considering the normal upbringing of feeding and caring for a baby part of viability. As far as i am concerned they are not able to do that well into their teens.

 

[editec]

Do YOU have a growth living inside your womb?

If not then really, what business is it of yours?

 

[JBeukema]

One's right to swing one's fist is absolute up to the point it hits another person.

What about killing another person in cold blood?

 

[JBeukema]

A human being is not 'a growth'

 

[spectrumc01]

This is a trick question, isn't it?

Nope. It's a simple matter of whether or not the right to do as you will with you body extends to acts which harm another or not.

So, does my right to do as I will with my body include harming another? Or are suicide bombings (it is, after all, my body i strap the bomb to), rape (after all, I'm just exercising my right to use my body as i will [overpowering you] just as you do the same with your own body [physically resist or go along with it]), and punching you in the face (moving my body through space) wrong because they cause harm another?

You can't have it both ways. Either my right to do as I will with and to my own body extends to acts which cause harm to another or it does not.

Do I have the right to remove a parasite from my body, such as a leach? One organism being leached off of by anither has the right to remove said organism, don't they? Do you have the right not to be touched by another, let alone be fed off of?

If we are going to give a fetus full rights and privilages than it must also be subjected to them as well. There is no such thing as "Super rights" and that is what we are ascribing to the fetus.

 

[Phoenix]

Do I have the right to remove a parasite from my body, such as a leach? One organism being leached off of by anither has the right to remove said organism, don't they? Do you have the right not to be touched by another, let alone be fed off of?

If we are going to give a fetus full rights and privilages than it must also be subjected to them as well. There is no such thing as "Super rights" and that is what we are ascribing to the fetus.

The problem is - a typical parasite is not usually invited into the body. In the MAJORITY of cases, women consent to the activity the ends up with a child being grown inside her body. If you're gonna have sex, you better be responsible enough to deal with what may result - a new life, dependent, baby, child, etc.

Why is it ok for a woman to want to control her body AFTER the fact but not be in control and be responsible DURING the act of procreation?

 

[spectrumc01]

Do I have the right to remove a parasite from my body, such as a leach? One organism being leached off of by anither has the right to remove said organism, don't they? Do you have the right not to be touched by another, let alone be fed off of?

If we are going to give a fetus full rights and privilages than it must also be subjected to them as well. There is no such thing as "Super rights" and that is what we are ascribing to the fetus.

The problem is - a typical parasite is not usually invited into the body. In the MAJORITY of cases, women consent to the activity the ends up with a child being grown inside her body. If you're gonna have sex, you better be responsible enough to deal with what may result - a new life, dependent, baby, child, etc.

Why is it ok for a woman to want to control her body AFTER the fact but not be in control and be responsible DURING the act of procreation?

No parasite is invited into the body, the poll said rape didn't it?

 

[Phoenix]

No parasite is invited into the body, the poll said rape didn't it?

It said "pro-choice" or "anti-rape".

I was referring to the pro-choice part. Most abortions are not for medical/health reasons or because of rape/incest. They are abortions of convenience. Sad, but true.

 

[JBeukema]

This is a trick question, isn't it?

Nope. It's a simple matter of whether or not the right to do as you will with you body extends to acts which harm another or not.

So, does my right to do as I will with my body include harming another? Or are suicide bombings (it is, after all, my body i strap the bomb to), rape (after all, I'm just exercising my right to use my body as i will [overpowering you] just as you do the same with your own body [physically resist or go along with it]), and punching you in the face (moving my body through space) wrong because they cause harm another?

You can't have it both ways. Either my right to do as I will with and to my own body extends to acts which cause harm to another or it does not.

Do I have the right to remove a parasite from my body, such as a leach?

So there's no difference between a leech and another human being?

You're a leech?

Really?

If we are going to give a fetus full rights and privilages than it must also be subjected to them as well. There is no such thing as "Super rights"

But there is a right to one's life, which outweighs your right to not have stretch marks

 

[emilynghiem]

Nope. It's a simple matter of whether or not the right to do as you will with you body extends to acts which harm another or not.

So, does my right to do as I will with my body include harming another? Or are suicide bombings (it is, after all, my body i strap the bomb to), rape (after all, I'm just exercising my right to use my body as i will [overpowering you] just as you do the same with your own body [physically resist or go along with it]), and punching you in the face (moving my body through space) wrong because they cause harm another?

You can't have it both ways. Either my right to do as I will with and to my own body extends to acts which cause harm to another or it does not.

Do I have the right to remove a parasite from my body, such as a leach?

So there's no difference between a leech and another human being?

You're a leech?

Really?

If we are going to give a fetus full rights and privilages than it must also be subjected to them as well. There is no such thing as "Super rights"

But there is a right to one's life, which outweighs your right to not have stretch marks

Dear JB: the DIFFERENCE is that "legally" people have agreed that once a baby is born then human rights apply; because people have NOT agreed before birth, then that issue invokes RELIGIOUS beliefs, different views that are not agreed to have been proven medically/scientifically/legally. People still disagree, so it is considered RELIGIOUS. And govt CANNOT make religious decisions for people against their beliefs or consent.

For policy to be consistent, there would have to be agreement religiously, and then laws can be passed without fear of discrimination.

Ironically I DO AGREE that since there is not consensus, even the laws we have now on abortion either impose a bias or threaten to; and therefore are only constitutional where people CONSENT to those laws. Same with marriage laws that are a religious convention but recognized as part of secular state law: the only reason that religous laws can be established by the state as policy is if people consent; otherwise, that would violate religious freedom if there is dissent where the policy discriminates or fails to protect/represent all interests but favors the beliefs of one group over another.

This happens all the time, so people don't object to the process of abusing majority-rule to impose a bias policy on others; they only complain when they get imposed upon by this!!!

 

[AllieBaba]

Do I have the right to remove a parasite from my body, such as a leach? One organism being leached off of by anither has the right to remove said organism, don't they? Do you have the right not to be touched by another, let alone be fed off of?

If we are going to give a fetus full rights and privilages than it must also be subjected to them as well. There is no such thing as "Super rights" and that is what we are ascribing to the fetus.

The problem is - a typical parasite is not usually invited into the body. In the MAJORITY of cases, women consent to the activity the ends up with a child being grown inside her body. If you're gonna have sex, you better be responsible enough to deal with what may result - a new life, dependent, baby, child, etc.

Why is it ok for a woman to want to control her body AFTER the fact but not be in control and be responsible DURING the act of procreation?

Babies continue to be parasites after they are born using this sick analogy. After all, they cannot survive except by attaching themselves to an adult who sees to their every need.

 

[JBeukema]

Dear JB: the DIFFERENCE is that "legally" people have agreed that once a baby is born then human rights apply

Legally people once agreed negroes had no rights

And women

And children

Segregation didn't begin to be addressed until the 60s.

Spousal Rape was legal until 1975 in South Dakota and 1993 in North Carolina. I don't just mean it wasn't criminalized. I mean the rape laws included an explicit exception that allowed a man to rape his wife on a regular basis. You can imagine what protection the (non-existent) domestic violence laws offered.

Federal law only declared it a crime to engage with sexual acts with children in 1973

Were all these things okay until then? Or were slavery and rape always wrong, even when they were legal?

then that issue invokes RELIGIOUS beliefs

Nobody brought religion into it until you did right now.