Wow.



I saw this thread and was SO ready to come in fighting (being that I'm from Oklahoma, though perhaps I shouldn't have been surprised). While I don't see your constantly posting threads that belittle or attack the political spectrum you disagree with as really all that productive, on this one I'm right there with you.

I totally don't think the government should be keeping tabs on and making public the private legal medical procedures people choose to have. That's why I think they should be in charge of the ENTIRE healthcare system. Well... wait... not THEM as in stupid republican Oklahomans, I mean them the benevolent, efficient, intelligent and well-meaning Obama administration. They wouldn't take control of 1/6th of the economy and do anything bad with it. And of course, they'll always been in power, so there's NO chance that the idiots that make this kind of legislation possible could ever get ahold of the reigns of Obamacare.

........right?

Cute. I don't.


Or to be more precise, I believe the question is more complicated than simply a woman being allowed to do what she wants with her body. At sooooome point down the line, the egg-->embryo-->fetus-->infant gains the same rights to life, liberty and welfare-state entitlements that the rest of us do. And in a pure comparison of rights, whereby giving the fetus the "right to life" you necessarily deny the mother the "right to choice" (and vice versa), I think the decision should favor an individual's LIFE (or ability to continue existing) over another's CHOICE (or 9-month inconvenience).

Abortion is one of those rare political topics where I don't think the other side is wrong, just that the topic is so complicated and fluid it's hard to pin an answer down. Both sides fit within the "libertarian" paradigm. On the one hand, the government stepping in and telling any individual, "You MUST do this with your body and are legally prohibited from doing anything about it." strikes me as abhorrent and creates a clear individual rights case of the most sensitive kind. But on the other hand, at what point DOES that egg-->embryo-->fetus-->infant gain the same individual rights we recognize for everyone else (and upon which the mother's right of choice is even founded). If you say "upon birth", then you sanction partial birth abortion, essentially the killing of perfectly viable BABIES that could live and grow outside their mother but have the misfortune of just not leaving the womb yet. If you say "viability", then on what basis? An individual level determined case-by-case by the doctor to perform the abortion? A statistical level, catching some viable fetuses in the mix but oh well their rights don't mean much anyway?

It's a messy issue and I think both positions have valid points. Like I said, if you have to violate one side or another's rights and there's no way around it, I'd elect to preserve the right to life. On a realistic level, I'd support a case-by-case determination of viability based on extrinsic data about an individual fetus. If it's not viable based on those, the fetus wouldn't be granted the rights necessary to trump the mother's right to abort it.


This is also one of those issues I think (and pray) technology will one day be able to solve almost entirely. As medical procedures advance, the point of viability for a fetus gets earlier and earlier in the pregnancy. I mean, could you imagine trying to preserve a prematurely born child 100 years ago? Today children are born prematurely on a regular basis. Ultimately, I hope that technology will allow us a mother, should she not want a child (or maybe even just not want to bother carrying it!) to "transfer" the developing fetus from her womb to an artificial one. Not only would it be able to do just as good a job of nourishing and aiding the fetus's development, it might actually be safer in some ways since an artificial womb wouldn't smoke or binge drink or get in car accidents.

Of course, the socialist would then demand artificial wombs for all and for free which might put a damper on my rosy outlook, or that in the alternative abortions should be remain an option for those that can't afford the "transfer," but that's a discussion to have when the technology actually becomes a viable option (no pun intended).

For me it doesn't seem very complicated, it's a simple question of sovereignty. I agree that the decision should favor an individual's life over another's choice. I just don't think you or anyone else should be the one making that decision. The state has no authority over an individuals biological systems. If you ever get pregnant then you can decide for yourself; otherwise, get the fuck out of where you don't belong.



That's funny, I see it as a simple dichotomy between personal autonomy and state authority. Anti-choice people demand the state insert control into women's bodies. It's that simple. The question of whether Zygote-American's deserve special rights is inherently authoritarian bullshit.



The whole "partial birth abortion" bullshit is propaganda that exploits the personal tragedy of women for shock value in order to chip away at reproductive rights. If you want some real shock you should read up on the women who are unable to get a "partial birth abortion" performed because there are only a handful of doctors who will perform them (e.g. Dr. Tiller, before his assasination by anti-choice terrorists was the only one in that part of the country). Forcing women to give birth to infants so monstrously deformed they are unable to survive is fucking cruel.




[/quote]

I always find it curious how seemingly everyone who is anti-choice stops caring about the "life of the child" once it's no longer inside the woman's body.

Oh no! Walls of text! I stopped reading after the first couple of posts.

Well, obviously something had to, or else the woman wouldn't be in that situation in the first place! =D


I also have no control over what a postpartum depression-suffering mother of five does with her children in a bathtub, but that doesn't mean the state wouldn't have legitimate authority to object to it.

And I never said anyone's reproductive system was committing a crime. If anything, the biological systems worked exactly as they were supposed to, and the crime in question is when someone decides to derail it regardless of whom it might kill.

The mother of five drowning her children is a completely different situation. I think you aren't understanding me still. Imagine your skin is the border of another country. Inside of it you are god-emperor. What goes on in there is up to you and no one else.