Two Questions for Conservatives

[chuck white]

Removing a body part is not the same as loaning out your uterus.
One is an unnatural alteration, the other is a biological function in course with it designed purpose.

The question should be.
Should a person be free to have his own body parts removed?

I don't like my left arm, can I have it cut off, even though there is nothing medically wrong with it?

If not, how about poking holes in my skin?

[csrowan]

http://www.reference.com/motif/history/f...on-stories

http://www.oddee.com/item_97759.aspx

[csrowan]

Natural or not doesn't matter to the argument. Either you have say over how your body is used, regardless of whether your choice will save a life or not, or you don't.

[Larry]

Nope. I was saving it for last night but forgot. I'm going back to sleep for a bit now, then it's off to cook breakfast and try to get a little work done. Then, if I remember, I'll give it a go.

New Rule: When you are trying to get information from a conservative you have to keep liberals from answering first. The conservatives cheat off the liberal answers.

Really clete? Really? None of the "conservatives" answers are "honest", because they match some of the "liberal's" answers?

Really? You truly believe that?

[tvguy]

Mortuaries should have You pick it yards just like the auto wrecking places. Once a body is totaled... er dead, their closest kin can sell them.
Just bring your tools, knife, axe, sawzall and wander around all the wrecked bodies till you find what you want.
Good luck finding a decent brain that isn't damaged, missing cells like an old battery.
Or a heart that hasn't been broken several times.

[Snowlover]

This was what I thought you were getting at.

Abortion. Yup. That's what this is about.

No, this isn't about convincing you that abortion is good, that the government should fund abortions with tax dollars, or even to convince you to not be anti-abortion.

This is about understanding that the choice to have an abortion is a basic human right that should not be legislated against, whether it's a ban, requiring trans vaginal ultrasounds first, passing laws making it more difficult for women to have access to an abortion provider, or any one of the myriad laws, bills, and amendments with the purpose of legislating away abortion.

If you already feel that way, good. If not, read on.

If you accept that bodily autonomy as described above is a basic human right, then unless you are willing to engage in some form of hypocrisy to justify it to yourself, you should logically accept that the right to have an abortion is a basic human right.

Under bodily autonomy, you cannot use someones's body parts against their will. A fetus is using a woman's body parts. It is there by permission, and not by right. It needs continuous consent. The pregnant individual has a right to deny or withdraw that consent. Yes, the fetus needs to use those body parts to live, but a child with failing kidneys needs someone's kidney to live, and you have every right to refuse the use of your kidney to that child.

By saying a fetus has a right to someone else's body parts, despite the pregnant individual's wishes, you are saying two things:


1) A fetus has more right to other people's bodies than anyone who has been born.

2) A pregnant woman has fewer rights over her own body than a corpse has.


You can still think abortion is bad, you can still try to convince people not to have them, but if you support making abortions illegal or difficult to get, you're giving more respect to a corpse than a woman.

1. The fetus is what a woman temporarily donates her womb to. If she decides she doesn't want to, then by right of bodily autonomy, she doesn't have to.

2. If you believe that a dead person has the right to bodily autonomy, but a pregnant woman doesn't, you're saying a corpse has more rights than a woman.

First of all my take on abortion which has nothing to do with my religion. I am personally against abortion BUT I don't want Roe v Wade reversed. I do think it is a woman's choice which the government has no business in. Since they have no business in the decision, they should not spend taxpayer money on it. If you are not 18, you should not be allowed to get an abortion without your parents knowledge. This is a medical procedure and no other procedure to my knowledge is done without consent of the parents. IMO, I feel before you get an abortion you should be counseled about your decision as to the possible side effects of the procedure as well as the emotional side effects which often happen years later. This is done in all surgical procedures. I also feel that if you haven't decided to abort by the end of the first trimester, you should not, unless recommended by a doctor for medical reasons. I know some of these views are controversial (to some religions/religious people and to woman's rights advocates) and there can be examples made for each reason as to why my reasons are wrong. But this is my opinion.

1. The fetus is what a woman temporarily donates her womb to. If she decides she doesn't want to, then by right of bodily autonomy, she doesn't have to.

The woman had a choice to not allow sperm into her womb. The woman has knowledge that no contraceptive is 100% effective. The fetus didn't choose her womb by force. The fetus was conceived through the woman's choices. The only exception I can think of to this is rape.

By your reasoning, the woman could decide to abort the baby up to the last minute before she goes into labor if she tires of 'donating' her womb.

2. If you believe that a dead person has the right to bodily autonomy, but a pregnant woman doesn't, you're saying a corpse has more rights than a woman.

I feel this is apples and oranges. Also, the dead person may have chosen not to donate but the family knowing his choice can override it unless the dead person made his choice known to the treating physician in writing or on the donor card. Or visa versa.

Another point is the 'corpse' made his choice while he/she was alive.

[Snowlover]

Hmmm....I come back 24 hours later and no response by Rowan. And he so wanted to discuss this last week.

[csrowan]

I've had a lot going on. And basically I'm just going to disagree and explain why and you probably won't be swayed.

[csrowan]

First of all my take on abortion which has nothing to do with my religion. I am personally against abortion BUT I don't want Roe v Wade reversed. I do think it is a woman's choice which the government has no business in. Since they have no business in the decision, they should not spend taxpayer money on it.

I'm glad you don't want Roe v Wade reversed. As to whether taxpayer money should be used in a way shape or form that funds abortion, there are a number of opinions on that. But it's irrelevant to my basic argument.

If you are not 18, you should not be allowed to get an abortion without your parents knowledge. This is a medical procedure and no other procedure to my knowledge is done without consent of the parents.

This is a tricky area. Lets say you were under 18 and donating bone marrow. You can't do it without parental permission. On the other hand, you can say "No", regardless of what your parents say or whether they even know you were asked in the first place.

The question is, is abortion more of a medical procedure or more of a body autonomy issue? From the standpoint of body autonomy, if you don't want to donate your womb for nine months, that's the equivalent of saying "No" when asked to donate the bone marrow. Your parents can't stop you from saying no, and they don't even need to be involved in that decision. It's only if you said yes that they would need to be informed and give consent.

I suppose you could turn it around, too. Lets say you want to have the baby. Do you think the parents should be able to force you to have an abortion? It's already in your body, it's already happening. To make a change requires your consent, regardless of what they wish.

IMO, I feel before you get an abortion you should be counseled about your decision as to the possible side effects of the procedure as well as the emotional side effects which often happen years later. This is done in all surgical procedures.

Great. Lets treat it the same as other surgical procedures in this way. Transvaginal ultrasounds aren't standard procedure. Forced counseling sessions and waiting periods aren't standard procedure. The "counseling" that doctors do is to say "This is what we're going to do. This is what could happen if something goes wrong. These are possible side effects. Do you still want to do this? Do you want some time to think about this?"

I also feel that if you haven't decided to abort by the end of the first trimester, you should not, unless recommended by a doctor for medical reasons. I know some of these views are controversial (to some religions/religious people and to woman's rights advocates) and there can be examples made for each reason as to why my reasons are wrong. But this is my opinion.

Most abortions (88%) happen in the first trimester. Only 6.6% between 13 and 15 weeks. 3.8% between 16 and 20. And only 1.5% at 21 weeks or later. If any of that matters to you.

1. The fetus is what a woman temporarily donates her womb to. If she decides she doesn't want to, then by right of bodily autonomy, she doesn't have to.

The woman had a choice to not allow sperm into her womb. The woman has knowledge that no contraceptive is 100% effective. The fetus didn't choose her womb by force. The fetus was conceived through the woman's choices. The only exception I can think of to this is rape.

Lets go back to the bone marrow donor. She's agreed to do it. She's signed all the paperwork. She's been prepped for surgery.

Just before they start, she says "No. I changed my mind." It doesn't matter that she wanted to do it before. It doesn't matter that she signed that paper or was prepped for surgery or that the leukemia patient will die. It's her body and her choice, regardless of what she did earlier.

By your reasoning, the woman could decide to abort the baby up to the last minute before she goes into labor if she tires of 'donating' her womb.

That is tricky. Where does one draw the line? I don't know. Thankfully, the vast majority of abortions are done long before 21 weeks. I can't imagine there will be many wanting abortions at 9 months.

And, as with all rights, there is usually some legislation that limits it beyond the pure philosophical version of the right. The problem is that the legislation limiting a woman's right to body autonomy in the case of pregnancy is more than just a little bit of limitation. A lot of it is attempts to make it as difficult as possible for her to use that body autonomy for something they don't agree with.

2. If you believe that a dead person has the right to bodily autonomy, but a pregnant woman doesn't, you're saying a corpse has more rights than a woman.

I feel this is apples and oranges. Also, the dead person may have chosen not to donate but the family knowing his choice can override it unless the dead person made his choice known to the treating physician in writing or on the donor card. Or visa versa.

Another point is the 'corpse' made his choice while he/she was alive.

I don't feel it's apples to oranges, because we're discussing how body autonomy should apply to both. If the dead person did not give permission, their body cannot be used. If the same does not apply to the woman, she is being given fewer rights to body autonomy than the corpse.

And in the case of a coma patient, the next of kin usually has the power to make some decisions about that person. Same with a dead person. But without the prior permission of the person or the next of kin or with instructions to the contrary from the person prior to their condition, there's a lot of things you can't do. Donating organs, among other things. I'm not sure how that applies to a pregnant woman's body autonomy though...

[Snowlover]

First of all my take on abortion which has nothing to do with my religion. I am personally against abortion BUT I don't want Roe v Wade reversed. I do think it is a woman's choice which the government has no business in. Since they have no business in the decision, they should not spend taxpayer money on it.

I'm glad you don't want Roe v Wade reversed. As to whether taxpayer money should be used in a way shape or form that funds abortion, there are a number of opinions on that. But it's irrelevant to my basic argument.

If you are not 18, you should not be allowed to get an abortion without your parents knowledge. This is a medical procedure and no other procedure to my knowledge is done without consent of the parents.

This is a tricky area. Lets say you were under 18 and donating bone marrow. You can't do it without parental permission. On the other hand, you can say "No", regardless of what your parents say or whether they even know you were asked in the first place.

The question is, is abortion more of a medical procedure or more of a body autonomy issue? From the standpoint of body autonomy, if you don't want to donate your womb for nine months, that's the equivalent of saying "No" when asked to donate the bone marrow. Your parents can't stop you from saying no, and they don't even need to be involved in that decision. It's only if you said yes that they would need to be informed and give consent.

I suppose you could turn it around, too. Lets say you want to have the baby. Do you think the parents should be able to force you to have an abortion? It's already in your body, it's already happening. To make a change requires your consent, regardless of what they wish.

IMO, I feel before you get an abortion you should be counseled about your decision as to the possible side effects of the procedure as well as the emotional side effects which often happen years later. This is done in all surgical procedures.

Great. Lets treat it the same as other surgical procedures in this way. Transvaginal ultrasounds aren't standard procedure. Forced counseling sessions and waiting periods aren't standard procedure. The "counseling" that doctors do is to say "This is what we're going to do. This is what could happen if something goes wrong. These are possible side effects. Do you still want to do this? Do you want some time to think about this?"

I also feel that if you haven't decided to abort by the end of the first trimester, you should not, unless recommended by a doctor for medical reasons. I know some of these views are controversial (to some religions/religious people and to woman's rights advocates) and there can be examples made for each reason as to why my reasons are wrong. But this is my opinion.

Most abortions (88%) happen in the first trimester. Only 6.6% between 13 and 15 weeks. 3.8% between 16 and 20. And only 1.5% at 21 weeks or later. If any of that matters to you.

1. The fetus is what a woman temporarily donates her womb to. If she decides she doesn't want to, then by right of bodily autonomy, she doesn't have to.

The woman had a choice to not allow sperm into her womb. The woman has knowledge that no contraceptive is 100% effective. The fetus didn't choose her womb by force. The fetus was conceived through the woman's choices. The only exception I can think of to this is rape.

Lets go back to the bone marrow donor. She's agreed to do it. She's signed all the paperwork. She's been prepped for surgery.

Just before they start, she says "No. I changed my mind." It doesn't matter that she wanted to do it before. It doesn't matter that she signed that paper or was prepped for surgery or that the leukemia patient will die. It's her body and her choice, regardless of what she did earlier.

By your reasoning, the woman could decide to abort the baby up to the last minute before she goes into labor if she tires of 'donating' her womb.

That is tricky. Where does one draw the line? I don't know. Thankfully, the vast majority of abortions are done long before 21 weeks. I can't imagine there will be many wanting abortions at 9 months.

And, as with all rights, there is usually some legislation that limits it beyond the pure philosophical version of the right. The problem is that the legislation limiting a woman's right to body autonomy in the case of pregnancy is more than just a little bit of limitation. A lot of it is attempts to make it as difficult as possible for her to use that body autonomy for something they don't agree with.

2. If you believe that a dead person has the right to bodily autonomy, but a pregnant woman doesn't, you're saying a corpse has more rights than a woman.

I feel this is apples and oranges. Also, the dead person may have chosen not to donate but the family knowing his choice can override it unless the dead person made his choice known to the treating physician in writing or on the donor card. Or visa versa.

Another point is the 'corpse' made his choice while he/she was alive.

I don't feel it's apples to oranges, because we're discussing how body autonomy should apply to both. If the dead person did not give permission, their body cannot be used. If the same does not apply to the woman, she is being given fewer rights to body autonomy than the corpse.

And in the case of a coma patient, the next of kin usually has the power to make some decisions about that person. Same with a dead person. But without the prior permission of the person or the next of kin or with instructions to the contrary from the person prior to their condition, there's a lot of things you can't do. Donating organs, among other things. I'm not sure how that applies to a pregnant woman's body autonomy though...

Thanks for the response but we will just have to disagree on this.