Lance_lake t1_jaofsba wrote
Reply to comment by glberns in In pre-Roe hearings, Pa. women described their anguished, resolved search for an abortion by FrederickChase
> Who else defines the legal standard of "reasonable person"? In practice, that standard is defined by a judge.
Judges don't make laws. Government (elected by the people) make them.
> But you believe that a woman should be legally forbidden from removing a fetus if she doesn't want it to use her body... You're contradicting yourself. Either you believe that she should be able to control whether the fetus uses her body, or you believe that the fetus has a legal right to her body. You can't believe both.
You are trying to use the violinist discussion here.
> You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist’s circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.
Yes?
> I believe that each person should get to define how much risk they want to take with their body. That a woman should not be legally required to take even that small risk.
So you are also against the military, schooling, and police then? Those are careers that they don't get a say as to how much risk they put themselves under.
When you get pregnant, you have agreed to take this risk.
> I certainly don't believe that the government should define an acceptable level of risk for an individual.
I'm sorry you don't want to fit into a society with laws. Thank you for your input, but this statement betrays your calm vernacular. If you don't agree with laws that limit risk to people, then I don't see any purpose of continuing with this conversation.
glberns t1_jap6k2k wrote
You're literally saying that you want the "reasonable person" standard to define when a woman meets the criteria for the life of the mother exemption your ideal law would allow for. If that's how you want the law to read, then it will be up to the judiciary to decide where the line is. Every time a woman gets an abortion to save her life, she'll be gambling that a judge agrees with her that she's being reasonable.
How do you expect that to play out without a judge deciding whether she's being reasonable?
>So you are also against the military, schooling, and police then? Those are careers that they don't get a say as to how much risk they put themselves under.
I'm against the draft, yes. And forcing people to be police officers. People can choose to take that risk.
>When you get pregnant, you have agreed to take this risk.
Unless she didn't want to get pregnant...
And you point out that a normal risk from pregnancy is way less than 1%. So when a woman gets a condition that increases that risk to 1%, that's more risk than she wanted to take.
At the end of the day you're position is to impose your risk tolerance on others.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments