Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_j9xchd7 wrote

Reply to comment by Batbuckleyourpants in Lawyer argues fetus of jailed pregnant woman is being illegally detained by He-is

[deleted]

4

Batbuckleyourpants t1_j9xi3fl wrote

>Yes fantastical wishful thinking but that's not how it is, which is why it's so fucked up that Republicans pretend mothers should only have the rights of a vessel rather than a human being.

If i am 10 minutes from giving birth, do i have the right to have someone reach in there and kill the t-10 minutes from being a born baby child?

>So you support having a choice about your own capability of having a child... "Prior to" what exactly? Where do you feel your own rights as a human being end?

I support reproductive rights. I support abortion rights up to 12 weeks. At which point it is not just your rights in the equation. You accepted a dependent.

If you go three months without resolving the issue, you made a choice. no matter how hard a choice it was.

>Do you support other human beings having a choice, or do you demand they make the same choice you would?

If i didn't want a child, i would get an abortion before the moral issue even came up. I would have had 3 months to make that choice.

Past that, it is a question of me claiming the right to end a life that i, regardless of the situation, through neglect or indecision put in the position. I don't think i should have that right in a temporary situation. Kid never did anything wrong.

−4

[deleted] t1_j9xid1j wrote

[deleted]

3

Batbuckleyourpants t1_j9xj41m wrote

It is a question that has been deliberately and consistently avoided, as you do.

Yes or no, does a woman's bodily autonomy trump the right of the child at 10 minutes before birth?

If one of a pair of twins has been delivered, can the mother morally demand an abortion of the second twin?

You refuse to answer the question because the chain of logic means you have to look back to decide when it is OK to end the life.

It is not some gotcha question.

−1

ArcticISAF t1_j9xjwgv wrote

Probably because you're in the 'all or nothing' mindset here. If it's in the third trimester, it's going to be restricted to medical issues only. I.E. the baby will kill or likely kill the mother, or the baby is already dead, etc.

10 minutes before birth, if the doctors (and you can add multiple approvals here like they mandate some places) agree it's likely to kill the mother on birth, then yeah, it should be up to the mother if she wants to give her life for this baby or not. To be clear, in this situation yes the mother's autonomy trumps the baby's.

If it's like 'Nah I don't want it anymore', then too bad, that should be done earlier, 12 weeks or 16 weeks or whatever.

5

Batbuckleyourpants t1_j9xkklm wrote

>Probably because you're in the 'all or nothing' mindset here. If it's in the third trimester, it's going to be restricted to medical issues only. I.E. the baby will kill or likely kill the mother, or the baby is already dead, etc.

So all abortions ever should be subject to a review to see if the fetus is endangering the physical health of the mother?

It's not an all or nothing thing when i ask you where you draw the line. You are painting an all or all image here. Reductions like this is helpful in discovering your position on the matter.

>10 minutes before birth, if the doctors (and you can add multiple approvals here like they mandate some places) agree it's likely to kill the mother on birth, then yeah, it should be up to the mother if she wants to give her life for this baby or not. To be clear, in this situation yes the mother's autonomy trumps the baby's.

So abortion is not OK unless a doctor show it is directly endangering the mother's life?

>If it's like 'Nah I don't want it anymore', then too bad, that should be done earlier, 12 weeks or 16 weeks or whatever.

Then we completely agree. Elective abortion past that point strikes me as murder.

0

[deleted] t1_j9xjcpa wrote

[deleted]

3

Batbuckleyourpants t1_j9xl5tg wrote

>No one is advocating for getting abortions 10 minutes before birth, this is a scenario right wingers lie about in order to get their base to vote against women's rights, and clearly their propaganda works or you wouldn't be here arguing for their BS.

Ignoring the fact that there are people advocating "total bodily autonomy" for women. this is the natural consequence of the bodily autonomy argument at it's core, and the left consistently refuse to even engage in the discussion because it forces you to decide how far back you are willing to accept terminating a human life.

>What's the question?

Yes or no, does a woman's bodily autonomy trump the right of the child at 10 minutes before birth?

At what point would you limit her autonomy, or do you not believe in women's autonomy at this point?

>

Is the question: "Do women deserve to have a right over their own body?"
If so, I say the answer is yes. What is your answer?

So a woman should have the right to kill a baby mid birth if she changes her mind?

1

[deleted] t1_j9xlfvu wrote

[deleted]

1

Batbuckleyourpants t1_j9xnhry wrote

I was making a hypothetical question that you avoided just like i said you would. The left will consistently refuse to engage on this...

You agree 100% that there is a limit to a woman's autonomy then? that was my point... Or do you support abortion 10 minutes before birth?

Yes or No?

1

[deleted] t1_j9yere4 wrote

[removed]

1

AutoModerator t1_j9yerg4 wrote

Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1