Women's Rights and Their Bodies

[ModernArtist25]

When a woman says she has the right to do whatever she wants to do with her body, is it really considered "just her" body or can it be another human being's body if the baby's brain, spinal cord, heart and organs already began to form?

 

 

[StringJunky]

When a woman says she has the right to do whatever she wants to do with her body, is it really considered "just her" body or can it be another human being's body if the baby's brain, spinal cord, heart and organs already began to form?

 

 

We've already, essentially, been here in the Is Abortion Ethical? Thread.

Edited November 9, 2016 by StringJunky

[Phi for All]

Without the right to your own body, what does freedom really mean? There MUST be a window where a woman's rights in this matter can't be taken from them, and supercede anyone else's, if you want any kind of freedom for yourself as a man.

[Daecon]

The baby has a whole lifetime of it being their body after they're born. Otherwise there's some strange situation where a woman's body is temporarily no longer her own body for a while?

[StringJunky]

Without the right to your own body, what does freedom really mean? There MUST be a window where a woman's rights in this matter can't be taken from them, and supercede anyone else's, if you want any kind of freedom for yourself as a man.

The moment of autonomy for the unborn child is set, to the best of current medical knowledge, and outside of that the mother should have her own autonomy to decide.

Edited November 10, 2016 by StringJunky

[Sirona]

Without the right to your own body, what does freedom really mean? There MUST be a window where a woman's rights in this matter can't be taken from them, and supercede anyone else's, if you want any kind of freedom for yourself as a man.

Men have sought to control women throughout history and attempted to disguise their actions by diverting from the truth; they fear losing what they believe is theirs. I fail to see how this is an different, you could approach it from an ethical perspective and argue that it is wrong by labeling it as murder or what have you. However, as a woman, I perceive it as a threat to my own freedom. If you want to make it about ethics and not control, then let me ask you: what about my right to lead the life that I choose? What if I believe that my purpose is more than biological?

[ModernArtist25]

The baby has a whole lifetime of it being their body after they're born. Otherwise there's some strange situation where a woman's body is temporarily no longer her own body for a while?

 

why is it just after they are born should it be their own body? should the baby reach a certain level of independence to be considered its own body?

Edited November 10, 2016 by ModernArtist25

[StringJunky]

why is it just after they are born should it be their own body? should the baby reach a certain level of independence to be considered its own body?

I think it's basically determined when science thinks a baby could survive outside the body, with medical assistance if necessary, and that they are sentient.

Edited November 10, 2016 by StringJunky

[Sirona]

why is it just after they are born should it be their own body? should the baby reach a certain level of independence to be considered its own body?

So you are suggesting that a woman's rights should be temporarily suspended then?

[ModernArtist25]

I am just curious as to why some women think it is only their body when they can feel another living, and kicking being in their belly

[swansont]

I am just curious as to why some women think it is only their body when they can feel another living, and kicking being in their belly

I'm curious why some people think they have the right to tell others what to do.

[Daecon]

I am just curious as to why some women think it is only their body when they can feel another living, and kicking being in their belly

I'm curious as to why you think it somehow stops being their body just because they happen to be temporarily gestating offspring?

[MigL]

I'm a firm believer of the rule " your rights stop when they start infringing on the rights of others ".

Yet this rule is often broken by laws, because some rights are perceived to be more important or fundamental than others.

A lot of countries have Good Samaritan laws that require a person to provide assistance to another person in distress ( see the last episode of Seinfeld ).

IE your right to go shopping is temporarily suspended if a person is having a heart attack beside you in the Mall.

 

I can almost 'see' the same reasoning used to suspend a woman's 'non-biological purpose' to guarantee the survival of an infant.

[StringJunky]

I'm a firm believer of the rule " your rights stop when they start infringing on the rights of others ".

Yet this rule is often broken by laws, because some rights are perceived to be more important or fundamental than others.

A lot of countries have Good Samaritan laws that require a person to provide assistance to another person in distress ( see the last episode of Seinfeld ).

IE your right to go shopping is temporarily suspended if a person is having a heart attack beside you in the Mall.

 

I can almost 'see' the same reasoning used to suspend a woman's 'non-biological purpose' to guarantee the survival of an infant.

You've lost me.

[CharonY]

I do not understand, either. Good Samaritan Laws in North America (afaik) do not force you to help others, instead it protects from liability should you decide to help someone. Germany has a rarely enforced law where one should render assistance according to their abilities but even then I do not see equivalency in suspending someone's right to their own body for months.

A slightly better example could be a law that forces you to donate a kidney. Do you think that such a law should exist?

[Daecon]

I wouldn't say a law that requires an organ to be removed and donated... how about a law that forces able-bodied women to be surrogates for infertile couples?

[Danijel Gorupec]

BTW, is there a difference in first three months of pregnancy and last three months of pregnancy in your jurisdiction (regarding woman rights)? In my jurisdiction, I am afraid, the woman right about how to use her body is somewhat suspended during high pregnancy.

 

What is justification for this difference, from your point of view?

 

For example, if woman right on her body is absolute, is it ok then if, one week before birth, she decides to finely chop the baby inside her and take it out by straw just because she suddenly panicked about birth pain?

[CharonY]

That never happens outside of medical emergencies. It is simply a matter-up fantasy as at that point birth would be much easier, safer and cheaper.

Even second-trimester are rare (ca. 10-12% of all abortions) as at that time the health risk for the mother is about the same as carrying to term. The required procedure is far more involved than in the first trimester, where abortion is safer for the mother than giving birth.

[Danijel Gorupec]

That never happens outside of medical emergencies. It is simply a matter-up fantasy as at that point birth would be much easier, safer and cheaper.

Even second-trimester are rare (ca. 10-12% of all abortions) as at that time the health risk for the mother is about the same as carrying to term. The required procedure is far more involved than in the first trimester, where abortion is safer for the mother than giving birth.

Oh, I agree on this, for sure... but this is not what I asked. I asked if the woman right on her body is absolute, does she then have the right even on irrational actions.

[Sirona]

I do not understand, either. Good Samaritan Laws in North America (afaik) do not force you to help others, instead it protects from liability should you decide to help someone. Germany has a rarely enforced law where one should render assistance according to their abilities but even then I do not see equivalency in suspending someone's right to their own body for months.

A slightly better example could be a law that forces you to donate a kidney. Do you think that such a law should exist?

Exactly. I take CPR training and First Aid each year as a requirement of my job and in all first aid situations, you need to assess the risk to your personal safety first and foremost. Even when you take a flight, the emergency procedure requires you to put your own mask on first before assisting others.

[StringJunky]

Oh, I agree on this, for sure... but this is not what I asked. I asked if the woman right on her body is absolute, does she then have the right even on irrational actions.

I think, not in the UK after 24 weeks. A foetus acquires personhood after that time and is registered as such in the event of their death, complete with a normal funeral, Like CharonY said, it would only occur if it was a medical necessity.

 

Regarding "irrational" actions prior to that time: that is for the mother and/or father to decide as, otherwise, one would be taking away their autonomy and rights. They have to live with and bear the responsibility for any decision they may make.

[ModernArtist25]

I'm curious as to why you think it somehow stops being their body just because they happen to be temporarily gestating offspring?

It doesn't stop being their body. It is their body and another being's body. They can murder the live being if they want, some people would see them as murderers just like some vegans would see meat eater as murderers, but we have the right.

Edited November 10, 2016 by ModernArtist25

[StringJunky]

It doesn't stop being their body. It is their body and another being's body. They can murder the live being if they want, some people would see them as murderers just like some vegans would see meat eater as murderers, but we have the right.

For an act to be murder it is usually necessary for it to be preceded by malice.

[swansont]

I wouldn't say a law that requires an organ to be removed and donated... how about a law that forces able-bodied women to be surrogates for infertile couples?

I think you need an example that would directly affect men.

[Delta1212]

For an act to be murder it is usually necessary for it to be preceded by malice.

Depraved heart murder explicitly doesn't require malice, just total indifference to human life.

 

Not making an argument, mind. Just pointing out a fact.