Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Women have the right to bodily autonomy, just like men. Women have the right to make their own medical decisions, just like men. Women have the right to privacy, just like men. What you seem to want is for womens rights to the above be removed for certain periods of time without her committing any crime.
If men get the right to live their lives as they choose and not have their rights taken from them without committing a crime, then so do women. And that includes the right to make their own medical decisions, what to eat, what they drink, if the smoke, etc.
You seem to have completely missed the point. I'm completely against letting men off the hook. By no means should a man have the right to engage in the act of reproduction without having the gender-specific consequences of that act applying fully. If the man and woman decide that they do not want the baby, there is also adoption. What both of them have done intentionally created new life. How does it make any sense to wantonly destroy that life for audaciously showing up right on cue -- when mom and dad consensually combine egg and sperm?? The child has committed no crime!
Quote:
If a woman gets pregnant, and eats one of many herbs that cause miscarriage. Do you consider that letting nature take its course? What if she refuses to eat right and exercise? Or see a doctor? Or if she is a MMA fighter? Or drinks? Or does any one of a million things that will cause a miscarriage?
Okay, I'll play along. I have two wonderful kids. But hey, let's just say my wife and I suddenly have buyer's remorse and don't want them anymore. We could feed them poison. There's all sorts of herbs and the like that will cause death. And hey, they're herbs. That's natural, right? Or we could just beat them both to death and let nature take its course that way. We could just stop giving them food or water and let nature take its course that way. How do you suppose that the law would see it in every one of those cases?
Many of the things you are suggesting would not actually terminate the pregnancy in the vast majority of cases. Alcoholic women were having babies -- the majority of them perfectly healthy -- long before we learned it was bad for the baby and became a social taboo. Same goes for smoking. The bigger question is whether the woman is actually trying to cause a miscarriage. For your examples, are they?
You seem to have completely missed the point. I'm completely against letting men off the hook. By no means should a man have the right to engage in the act of reproduction without having the gender-specific consequences of that act applying fully. If the man and woman decide that they do not want the baby, there is also adoption. What both of them have done intentionally created new life. How does it make any sense to wantonly destroy that life for audaciously showing up right on cue -- when mom and dad consensually combine egg and sperm?? The child has committed no crime!
Okay, I'll play along. I have two wonderful kids. But hey, let's just say my wife and I suddenly have buyer's remorse and don't want them anymore. We could feed them poison. There's all sorts of herbs and the like that will cause death. And hey, they're herbs. That's natural, right? Or we could just beat them both to death and let nature take its course that way. We could just stop giving them food or water and let nature take its course that way. How do you suppose that the law would see it in every one of those cases?
Many of the things you are suggesting would not actually terminate the pregnancy in the vast majority of cases. Alcoholic women were having babies -- the majority of them perfectly healthy -- long before we learned it was bad for the baby and became a social taboo. Same goes for smoking. The bigger question is whether the woman is actually trying to cause a miscarriage. For your examples, are they?
There is no male consequence of pregnancy. There is male consequences of being a father, but legally that doesn't happen until after the pregnancy is over, and the female is equally responsible for a child. So, please do tell the male consequence during pregnancy.
You seem to be missing the issue of the difference between a fetus, and a person. One is solely reliant on ONE person. One is a born living and breathing person with rights.
As for my examples, it doesn't matter if she is trying to miscarry or not. Why should a man have full control of his body, medical decisions, and privacy, but a woman has to lose hers for 9 months without committing a crime.
Basic biology says that a person with cancer will more than likely die. Modern medicine says that they have a very good possibility of living. Even before modern medicine women were aborting unwanted fetuses. I have several plants growing in my garden that will induce a miscarriage.
A woman has all the same rights that a man does, and can not have those rights removed without committing a crime.
1. Basic biology says that a person with cancer will more than likely die. Modern medicine says that they have a very good possibility of living.
2. Even before modern medicine women were aborting unwanted fetuses.
3. I have several plants growing in my garden that will induce a miscarriage.
4. A woman has all the same rights that a man does, and can not have those rights removed without committing a crime.
1. You are comparing apples and oranges here, because curing someone of cancer is not going to negatively affect anyone else.
2. Yes, and your point is?
3. OK.
4. You are assuming that the right to bodily autonomy should be this broad for anyone. I disagree with you (and this applies to males as well), and thus, this is where the debate on this is.
1. You are comparing apples and oranges here, because curing someone of cancer is not going to negatively affect anyone else.
2. Yes, and your point is?
3. OK.
4. You are assuming that the right to bodily autonomy should be this broad for anyone. I disagree with you (and this applies to males as well), and thus, this is where the debate on this is.
No, I am comparing medical procedures to medical procedures. Neither of them are natural.
And I'm sorry if you disagree with bodily autonomy, but that is how the law works.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
