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?


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.


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.


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.


Batbuckleyourpants t1_j9xc6px wrote

If a mother was lost on a deserted island, she had what she needed to feed her self and her child. Would you find it acceptable for her to just leave her helpless kid alone, knowing it would starve?

Yes, parents can speak on behalf of the child, but to advance it's health and wellbeing, not to advocate it's detriment and demise.

We would never accept a mother deliberately ending the life of a toddler in her care if no adoption services were available.

The baby or even a fetus past a certain point of development in her womb is in her care, she has a responsibility to ensure it's safety and wellbeing. She is it's caretaker when there are no alternative caretakers to take over.


Batbuckleyourpants t1_j9x9uoh wrote

Absolute nonsense. If there was a magical way to transport the baby into a pod where it grew to maturity that would be awesome. Likewise there is no objection to inducing an early birth once the baby is considered viable.

It is about accepting that at a certain point, the baby has rights and should be afforded the most basic of protection, IE that we protect it from being killed.

I am fine with abortion prior to 12 weeks or when the health of the mother is physically threatend. After that it is a separate human being with a functional central nervous system and a heartbeat.

What is the alternative to killing a separate human being? I would love to hear of one.


Batbuckleyourpants t1_j9x5tgy wrote

The child is effectively on temporary lifesupport, unable to express agency, and is currently a ward of the state.

Keeping the baby in the mother is the best care they can provide, anything else would actively endanger the child. Where the mother is makes no tangible difference in this case.


Batbuckleyourpants t1_j9x5dqk wrote

Easy really. The baby is effectively a ward of the state stuck on life support.

There is no way to remedy the situation, so i would be surprised if the supreme court even tackle that issue. It's rights is not being imposed upon in any tangential way, just like the mother is not illegally detaining the child by keeping it in her belly.

The baby is not incarcerated in any meaningful way. The baby is as free to walk as it can possibly be. The baby also don't have any agency, it is no different than how a comatose person has no agency to walk out of the room they are in, that does not make it a kidnapping.

There is no meaningful freedom available to it, so the government is not impeding on said freedom.

In fact, as the child is effectively on life support, the state is providing for it's rights in an actually tangential way by leaving it in the parent's belly.

Where i do think the lawyer absolutely has a point is in demanding OB Care which the mother was denied, The mother absolutely should have proper access to it because that is a right that meaningfully apply to both the baby and the mother herself.