If you believe in wealth redistribution...

If you believe that those who have have an obligation to help the ones in need, then why shouldn't an individual be required to share their property (her uterus) with that poor little fetus?

The woman isn't permanently required to give up anything, just to let her fetus use a part of her body for a little bit. There simply is no other way for the fetus to be able to live. The woman has the means, and she's being stingy if she will not share.

This doesn't involve anything unnatural. In fact, nothing in the world is more 'natural' than pregnancy. The woman just has to let nature take its course... If she interferes with nature, that's really a form of stealing. Since the poor are entitled to "their fair share", a fetus has certain entitlements as well.

If you believe in wealth redistribution, how can argue that a woman has the right to withhold her resources from her child in need?

Aside from the usual "it's not a baby" argument, do pro-choicers have any other argument against this?

 

Yes, the argument against this is the following mythical imaginary untrue un-scientific non-factual pile of hilarious BS :


""""The woman isn't permanently required to give up anything, just to let her fetus use a part of her body for a little bit. There simply is no other way for the fetus to be able to live. The woman has the means, and she's being stingy if she will not share.

This doesn't involve anything unnatural. In fact, nothing in the world is more 'natural' than pregnancy. The woman just has to let nature take its course... If she interferes with nature, that's really a form of stealing. Since the poor are entitled to "their fair share", a fetus has certain entitlements as well."""

 

Show us in what REAL WORLD system has there been no OBLIGATION to the community? Your being obligated does not provide you martyr or special snowflake POINTS.

What it shows is your lack of the usual empathy expected on average if you question obligation as a concept.

 

Boy, I have heard some whopper stories in my time but this one might be at the top. Now it is the duty of women to share her property (uterus) with a fetus because it is an obligation she made by getting pregnant. This is right out of the neolithic period when motherhood was sacred because men could not fathom how a women could produce a baby. It appears that women are still nothing but brood stock to some. Thankfully my daughters are not controlled by this garbage. They and they alone are in charge of their own bodies and motherhood options.

 

This kind of stuff comes about because Anti-Choicers really haven't got any facts, science, or law on their side so they must make up myths about how women are obligated to breed like cattle.

 

So any woman who does not believe in "wealth redistribution" is free to have an abortion under your conditions of obligation.

We know that millions of fetus are naturally aborted.
We know that not all uterus are perfectly formed to bring a child to term.

We know that a woman's reproductive system is set up to naturally abort a problem pregnancy ... IF IT IS ABLE TO DO SO.
We know that sometimes a pregnancy needs to be terminated by a doctor's intervention or BOTH mother and fetus will die.

How is it not possible that a terminated pregnancy is not simply the woman's body telling her brain that this fetus needs to be terminated, but that
the natural process to do so is compromised so that it will need outside intervention to complete what should be a natural process.

The day God makes every uterus perfect - the day that every fertilized egg implants properly - THAT will be the day I say that we should consider all fetus as sacred.
Until then, I will leave that choice to the woman who faces the possibility of death that comes with every pregnancy to make that decision.

 

So the OP is trying to come up with "Yet Another Rationalization For Why I Need To Control Women".....


while the real issue is his own psychopathological issue.

 

Perfect!!!! And how much of your wealth have you distributed to help these poor babies in need?

Those who believe in redistribution of wealth really mean "Redistribution of other people's wealth" Never their own.

Just like people who believe that women should be forced to give birth. As long as they don't have to contribute in caring for these children!!

Mr. Florence, your threads are getting more desperate. Everyone here can plainly see that you have ZERO concern for the welfare of these babies. ZERO!

 

Get back to us when you are willing to "share the wealth" of your kidneys, liver lobes, corneas, skin, bone marrow, etc, etc with the indigent.

The desperation of the OP reaches new depths yet again.

Where is this dementia going?

Women must accept being confined to small crates for 9 months in order to breed the OP's approved "babies" on demand?

 

Good point. For those not yet on the marrow donor registry, please take a moment and register. www.bethematch.org

 

I do believe in using government to promote wealth redistribution through taxation, but it never occurred to me to insist that everyone who has two kidneys is obliged to give one up or that everyone with two arms should be required to have one amputated to give to someone who has no arms. Its because there is something a little more intrusive about extending the concept from taxation to body parts and use.

LOL I am sure to give this unique notion all the serious thought it deserves. its already got points for creativity. Never heard this before.

 

Have you read the replies? Did any of your fellow Anti-Choicers jump right in to support you?

Do you disagree with what has been posted??

 

Impossible to take an OP that ludicrous seriously so it deserved to be parodied.

However Doofenschmirtz did provide a useful link for becoming a marrow doner.

 

If the OP doesn't sign up he must be "STINGY" which he considers a Really Bad Thing, possibly against the law, when done by women.

 

The depths of your floundering get deeper and deeper

 

Viewed from this perspective, it's no wonder Ayn Rand was pro-choice. Pro-life is a form of Womb Socialism.

 

Silly thread, silly premise but I'll reply anyway.

Individuals are not required to use their bodies to sustain the life of another and because the "poor little fetus" is part of her body, no one else's.

NO one can force another person to say, give them their liver or blood or kidney or heart to sustain their own life.

,



JUST THE RIGHT TO HER OWN BODY.

"Stingy" isn't against the law.

Why? No one else is obligated to "just let nature take it's course"....

Total silliness... if you ever need life saving surgery remember to refuse it and LET NATURE TAKE IT'S COURSE

No , it doesn't....and how do you know a fetus is poor?

It's against the law to withhold support of a CHILD.

A million or two.

First, women , like everyone else has a right to their own bodies.

NO one is obliged to give birth.

IF the fetus was ever deemed a legal person with rights, with those rights come RESTRICTIONS that we all have. It cannot use another's body to sustain it's life without consent.

And , even though you DENIGRATE what women go through and think it's nothing the following is what women face in pregnancy ...and it doesn't even touch on medical expeneses, possible job loss and/or time off work, career and educational setbacks, and the FACT that some women who have abortions can't afford a child and don't want to remain poor.:


Normal, frequent or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy:

• exhaustion (weariness common from first weeks)
• altered appetite and senses of taste and smell
• nausea and vomiting (50% of women, first trimester)
• heartburn and indigestion
• constipation
• weight gain
• dizziness and light-headedness
• bloating, swelling, fluid retention
• hemmorhoids
• abdominal cramps
• yeast infections
• congested, bloody nose
• acne and mild skin disorders
• skin discoloration (chloasma, face and abdomen)
• mild to severe backache and strain
• increased headaches
• difficulty sleeping, and discomfort while sleeping
• increased urination and incontinence
• bleeding gums
• pica
• breast pain and discharge
• swelling of joints, leg cramps, joint paininfection including from serious and potentially fatal disease
  (pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with non-pregnant women, and are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases)
• extreme pain on delivery
• hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression
• continued post-partum exhaustion and recovery period (exacerbated if a c-section -- major surgery -- is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to fully recover)

Normal, expectable, or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy:

• stretch marks (worse in younger women)
• loose skin
• permanent weight gain or redistribution
• abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness
• pelvic floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life -- aka prolapsed utuerus, the malady sometimes badly fixed by the transvaginal mesh)
• changes to breasts
• increased foot size
• varicose veins
• scarring from episiotomy or c-section
• other permanent aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed by women, because the culture values youth and beauty)
• increased proclivity for hemmorhoids
• loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)
• higher lifetime risk of developing Altzheimer's
• newer research indicates microchimeric cells, other bi-directional exchanges of DNA, chromosomes, and other bodily material between fetus and mother (including with "unrelated" gestational surrogates)

Occasional complications and side effects:

• complications of episiotomy
• spousal/partner abuse
• hyperemesis gravidarum
• temporary and permanent injury to back
• severe scarring requiring later surgery
  (especially after additional pregnancies)
• dropped (prolapsed) uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other pelvic floor weaknesses -- 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele, and enterocele)
• pre-eclampsia (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy, associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 - 10% of pregnancies)
• eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death)
• gestational diabetes
• placenta previa
• anemia (which can be life-threatening)
• thrombocytopenic purpura
• severe cramping
• embolism (blood clots)
• medical disability requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother or baby)
• diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles
• mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication)
• serious infection and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis)
• hormonal imbalance
• ectopic pregnancy (risk of death)
• broken bones (ribcage, "tail bone")
• hemorrhage and
• numerous other complications of delivery
• refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease
• aggravation of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and treatment prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency of seizures)
• severe post-partum depression and psychosis
• research now indicates a possible link between ovarian cancer and female fertility treatments, including "egg harvesting" from infertile women and donors
• research also now indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival rates and proximity in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy
• research also indicates a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease

Less common (but serious) complications:

• peripartum cardiomyopathy
• cardiopulmonary arrest
• magnesium toxicity
• severe hypoxemia/acidosis
• massive embolism
• increased intracranial pressure, brainstem infarction
• molar pregnancy, gestational trophoblastic disease
  (like a pregnancy-induced cancer)
• malignant arrhythmia
• circulatory collapse
• placental abruption
• obstetric fistula

More permanent side effects:

• future infertility
• permanent disability
• death.
  

 

You had to dig up ANOTHER old thread just to post something silly?

Wasn't the Panda thread enough ?

 

Assault pandas!!!!

 

Why do so many want to bring unwanted children into a world where the mother does not want them and the people who forced her to have the child could care less about them once born? It is as if some of us think women are nothing but breeders for Jesus. After birth, Jesus takes over apparently. The record of Jesus taking care of us has a sorry record, it goes back 2000 years and encompasses the entirety of the Western World. Did Jesus help anyone during the last 2000 years avoid misery, death, war, famine, poverty, racism and disease? Where was Jesus? You know the answer.

 

Why doesn't this same logic apply for newborn babies as well?

You don't consider the inside of a uterus as 'part of this world' ? Are the contents of the uterus in another dimension?

 

Woolley said: ↑
Why do so many want to bring unwanted children into a world where the mother does not want them and the people who forced her to have the child could care less about them once born?

Duh, note he posted "once born"....

The question is stupid ...it's obvious what he meant...

 

Well said indeed!!!!!!

 

JoakimFlorence said: ↑
If you believe that those who have have an obligation to help the ones in need, then why shouldn't an individual be required to share their property (her uterus) with that poor little fetus?

The woman isn't permanently required to give up anything, just to let her fetus use a part of her body for a little bit. There simply is no other way for the fetus to be able to live. The woman has the means, and she's being stingy if she will not share.

This doesn't involve anything unnatural. In fact, nothing in the world is more 'natural' than pregnancy. The woman just has to let nature take its course... If she interferes with nature, that's really a form of stealing. Since the poor are entitled to "their fair share", a fetus has certain entitlements as well.

If you believe in wealth redistribution, how can argue that a woman has the right to withhold her resources from her child in need?

Aside from the usual "it's not a baby" argument, do pro-choicers have any other argument against this?

So you believe in share the wealth...then send me $250,000 …….if women have to "share the wealth" in this ASSinine comparison then YOU DO ,TOO...!

 

Aside from the fact that a zygote can not be legitimately claimed to be "a baby" there is the principle on which this nation was founded = "Individual liberty is above the legitimate authority of Gov't"

Your whole "wealth redistribution" argument is based on the premise that a zygote is in fact "a baby/a living human". To then turn around and claim "aside from the its not a baby argument" is then begging the question fallacy.

You then go on to make a bunch of other false claims " The woman is not permanently required to give anything up". A woman's body is permanently affected. In fact she may give up her life - since when is death not permanent. The above claim is both uneducated and clueless.

Then there is the problem of false dichotomy. Wealth redistribution and letting a process (known as pregnancy) assume control of your body are two completely different things.