Should a woman who has repeated abortions have her uterus privileges taken away?

The woman HAS NO DUTY....to gestate

She shouldn't have to suffer for any length of time...YOU don't have to.

Why do you think women suffering is no big deal....nevermind, I know why

Women may die from pregnancy, they have LIFE LONG effects from pregnancy and YOU denying this will not change it...

If it isn't then it should be able to be taken out, set on a shelf, and grow on it's own.....CAN IT?

 

.

Find a biology book and then tell me why , since you think a fetus(ZEF) is just free floating in a woman for no apparent reason, it can't be taken out and set on a shelf to grow on it's own ????

If it isn't part of her body then why TF is it in there and why TF should she have to keep it there ?????[/QUOTE]

 

you NEVER supported your own OP by showing what "uterus privileges" are or where they came from or even is they're real.....you couldn't prove a thing ….

 

Why do you keep replying to me as if I am on the anti-abortion side of the argument? You clearly are failing to read if such is the case. I am making the arguments as to why bodily autonomy is the key to a person's abortion rights.

 

Did you not state in post 348 , ""An argument I find false. It's in her body, true, but it really isn't part of her body. Hence why the bodily autonomy argument is paramount.""


Did I misunderstand that ? Did you mean you find that false?

 

If you took that as if I were arguing as if bodily autonomy applied to the ZEF then yes, you misunderstood it.

The offspring is a genetically separate thing from her body, therefore it is not a part of her body. If it were, then there would be no point of contention. But since it is not, bodily autonomy steps in allowing her to provide, deny, or even later withdraw consent to another individual making use of her bodily functions.

 

It may be genetically separate BUT it is NOT separate from the woman, , it is attached to, and part of, her body.

That is why it can't be taken out, set on a shelf, and grow on it's own.

The ZEF has no bodily autonomy because it is not born, it is not a person.


IF a fetus is ever deemed a person then the woman's bodily autonomy comes into play ...NO one may use her body to sustain their life without consent.

 

What would we do if an individual killed 10 people all 9 months apart from one another and claimed they were all self defense killings?

 

Consent is given at the time the act is consented to that created the child in utero. Later deciding she doesn't want it does not justify her committing homicide against the child in utero!

 

Why then is it illegal to simply abandon a child you don't want, or pay someone to kill him/her?

 

Attached to is not automatically part of. We can attach a pace maker inside a person. It is inside them, but not a part of them. They can demand its removal and lo and behold, it cannot be sat on a shelf and grow on its own.

Which is irrelevant as is. There may come the day when our medical technology does allow the ZEF to survive sans the mother. Maybe she loses the right to determine if it is terminated or not, but she will always retain the right and ability to end the pregnancy. So survival of the ZEF outside the mother's womb is irrelevant.

And there is no claim on my part otherwise, so why are you even bringing it up? It's responses like this that imply that you are not reading what I actually write, but instead knee jerk a reaction as if I was making a pro-life argument.

Because of bodily autonomy, the status of the ZEF is irrelevant.

 

Are said terminated people, drawing up the bodily functions of the one doing the terminating, or is the one doing the terminating performing the action on consensual behalf of the one whose bodily functions are being used without their consent by they one being terminated?

 

That isn't the case with abortion either, well not entirely. It would be more accurate to say she consented, then withdrew her consent unless the act that created the pregnancy was not consensual.

 

Consent is given at the time the act is consented to that initiated sex. Later deciding she doesn't want it does not justify her ending sex!

Consent to the use of your body can be withdrawn at any time, except after the fact. After the fact in the situation of procreation is once the offspring is born and is no longer inside the woman drawing upon her bodily functions.

 

At that point they are not in violation of the individual's bodily autonomy. Once separate and autonomous from any given individual, they are what limited rights are afforded any minor.

 

As noted with the previous post on the issue, consent can be withdrawn at any time until after the fact. For example, I can consent to provide a kidney to a person, who will die otherwise. Right up to the point when they are going to withdraw the organ, I can withdraw that consent, even if it means that the receiver will die. There is no situation in which one cannot withdraw given consent to the use by others of their body.

 

That's normally true, but it's not true when proffering consent, and then yanking it away, will result in a situation of that person dying when they otherwise wouldn't, if you had not given consent in the first place.
For example, inviting someone out on your boat, and then, while the boat is out at sea, forcing them to get off.

 

Can we look at this hypothetically for a moment?
What about a situation where the woman only has to gestate for 10 more days, and the fetus would be able to survive if it was removed from her?
But if she did not wait 10 more days, the fetus would not be able to survive outside of her.

Would it be reasonable, in that hypothetical situation, to require her to gestate for just 10 days, if it could give life to the fetus and not violate her bodily autonomy after that?

 

Should a woman who signs a contract (for example, surrogacy) still be entitled to all the perks of "bodily autonomy"?

She did intentionally choose to get pregnant, and knew the terms of the contract.

Or do you still believe she has the right to revoke giving life even then?

 

So are you saying that I do not have the right to withdrawal the consent for them to have my kidney before it is removed, because it would result in them dying?

False analogy. I have been very specific about bodily autonomy being about the use of bodily functions. There is no use of the owner's bodily functions in your example.

 

That is an excellent analogy.

 

Still in violation of her bodily autonomy. Good luck to her in first discovering the condition and then getting the procedure schedule before it comes out on it's own though. Her bodily autonomy does not require another to provide her the service or for a person who normally do it to be available on a moment's notice. Your example would result in more women having the offspring due to scheduling issue over rights violations. If you could find a way to shorten the gestation to 10 days, you would drop the abortion rate simply due to not being able to get the procedure in time.

 

She retains the right of bodily autonomy. That doesn't mean that she doesn't receive the consequence of contract violation. Those are two separate issue. Please don't try to conflate them.

 

Does she still have the right to get pregnant if she's repeatedly abused that right in the past?


I believe there is, or may be, some connection between the right to get pregnant, and the right not to be pregnant (when it comes to artificially ending a pregnancy).

 

Consent to one act(sex) is not consent for any other act(becoming pregnant).

Anyway, consent can always be withdrawn.

Again, it seems to be the "punish women for having sex" theme..