Roe VS Wade officially goes back before the Supreme Court - Page 13 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15201350
wat0n wrote:If a woman has an abortion there's no way to turn it back. The rights she'll see being limited as a result of going to jail will be, among others, freedom of association - exactly as it is happening to the unvaccinated in countries like Austria and Germany. So under your reasoning, banning abortion would not affect a woman's right to bodily autonomy but other rights.

:)


Banning abortion is a direct violation of body autonomy for pregnant people.

This is true even if banning abortion also impacts ( or does not impact other rights.

Including whatever weird and convoluted thing you are arguing.
#15201363
When women have a miscarriage are you going to just assume guilt and imprison them? After all, she could have purposefully done that to abort the fetus.

Are you going to do what Poland is thinking of doing, and having a pregnancy registry, so if a woman's fetus does not result in a birth, you can imprison them?

Are you going to make the men start paying child support the moment the woman announces that she's pregnant? That would only be fair.
#15201369
wat0n wrote:
...And pushed into vaccinating is not? Nonsense.



Pants-of-dog wrote:
Again, vaccination is not compulsory by law.



wat0n, we all know that you love to play devil's advocate, but I think in this instance, in particular, it's really starting to look in poor taste -- *are* you really anti-vax? It's not fun-and-games here.
#15201370
ckaihatsu wrote:wat0n, we all know that you love to play devil's advocate, but I think in this instance, in particular, it's really starting to look in poor taste -- *are* you really anti-vax? It's not fun-and-games here.


Not at all. It does illustrate though that the bodily autonomy argument can only go so far, at least that one does not convince me too much when the usual suspects (you know who, if you read those threads) defend not getting immunized.

Because of that, I can understand why those who believe a fetus is a person are not convinced by it either. For them, an abortion is killing a person and they are simply acting in consequence.
#15201372
wat0n wrote:
Not at all. It does illustrate though that the bodily autonomy argument can only go so far, at least that one does not convince me too much when the usual suspects (you know who, if you read those threads) defend not getting immunized.

Because of that, I can understand why those who believe a fetus is a person are not convinced by it either. For them, an abortion is killing a person and they are simply acting in consequence.



Okay, fair enough -- in citing bourgeois rights POD is getting caught-up in the contradictions inherent in such *ideals*, implemented as rules / laws.

'Bodily autonomy' obviously can't be-applied / apply universally, because of too-widely-varying actual *applications* / conditions, like the anti-vax one you cited, for argument's sake.

Instead of backsliding to bourgeois-type 'rights', I think we need to situate the situation in terms of the woman's *self-determination*, as a (socio-political) *principle*. Can people / adults be fully *self-determining*, or not, and, if-not, then maybe the fetus gots to go.
#15201375
@Pants-of-dog
Banning abortion is a direct violation of body autonomy for pregnant people.


And for the umteenth time. You are asserting a right to "body autonomy" that does not exist and never has. For example. In the first 13 weeks (give or take) the SCOTUS has said a woman has the right to choose. This has nothing to do with what you call "body autonomy". It has to do with a decision by the authorities as to when viability begins.

A man does not have the "right" to your so-called "body autonomy". He can be drafted and forced at the threat of imprisonment or even death to sacrifice his body and even his very life to the government. And yes, the US still has a draft.

No person has "body autonomy" anyway. For example, one can easily survive on one kidney, and a kidney can bring as much as $200,000.00. Never the less it is against the law to sell one's kidney. It is illegal in four states to offer surrogate pregnancy.

No citizen has the right to put any substance into their body that they wish. The states are articulating the right to control how your body is used in that regard also. Voluntary euthanasia is illegal in the US.

So I have clearly shows withconcrete examples, that no such thing as "body autonomy" exists as a right.

So add to that the fact that the SCOTUS allows the forcing of women to bring a child to term and that is the end of it. We already know that you do not agree with them. A great many people don't. That does not alter the fact that there is, at least in the US, no right to "body autonomy".
#15201381
Drlee wrote:@Pants-of-dog

And for the umteenth time. You are asserting a right to "body autonomy" that does not exist and never has.


Sure it does.

In Canada, for example.

For example. In the first 13 weeks (give or take) the SCOTUS has said a woman has the right to choose. This has nothing to do with what you call "body autonomy". It has to do with a decision by the authorities as to when viability begins.


I doubt this.

Even though you guys have no explicit right to body autonomy, it does influence US civil rights.

A man does not have the "right" to your so-called "body autonomy". He can be drafted and forced at the threat of imprisonment or even death to sacrifice his body and even his very life to the government. And yes, the US still has a draft.


The last person drafted was in 1973. 48 years ago.

When the last time abortion was limited in the USA was 48 years ago, you can make this comparison. But now it just seems incorrect.

No person has "body autonomy" anyway. For example, one can easily survive on one kidney, and a kidney can bring as much as $200,000.00. Never the less it is against the law to sell one's kidney.


But you can donate it. So, it is not body autonomy that is restricted. It is, instead, the selling and buying of human organs.

It is illegal in four states to offer surrogate pregnancy.


Yes. As I said, pregnancy is the exception where body autonomy is not respected.

[code]
No citizen has the right to put any substance into their body that they wish. The states are articulating the right to control how your body is used in that regard also. Voluntary euthanasia is illegal in the US.
[/quote]

The fact that the US ignores this right consistently and frequently does not mean they do not have the right. They just apply it inconsistently.

So I have clearly shows withconcrete examples, that no such thing as "body autonomy" exists as a right.


No.

And also note that I pointed out that your constitution makes no mention of it.

So add to that the fact that the SCOTUS allows the forcing of women to bring a child to term and that is the end of it. We already know that you do not agree with them. A great many people don't. That does not alter the fact that there is, at least in the US, no right to "body autonomy".


No, that is incorrect.

If that were the case, vaccines could be made compulsory.
#15201389
wat0n wrote:In fact, some vaccines are mandatory for public school entry in all states.
Yes, and you still have the right to not get a vaccine. You just give up the privilege of an education. You also have the right not to carry ID, but you might be denied access to a drinking establishment, because of it.

It's not comparable to body autonomy that a pregnant woman is denied because she might choose to get an abortion. It's on a far lower level, and vaccines are a matter of public health. A pregnancy is not. It can't be spread like a disease. It only affects the health of pregnant individual.

Making a vaccine mandatory wouldn't be unconstitutional in the USA, as they make many public health mandates. Quarantines are public health mandates.
#15201391
Barring unvaccinated kids from schools is not about body autonomy. Parents can choose whether or not kids get vaccinated and this then affects school choices.

Parents can choose to send their kids to private schools or homeschool.

So this is, at best, an infringement of other rights.
  • 1
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 19

What destruction of the Alexandrian Library by re[…]

Sorry if someone already pointed this out, but it'[…]

Boris Johnson is done

And now Keir Starmer has accused Johnson of breaki[…]

I know people who have been denied entry at Heathr[…]