• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Pro Life / Pro Choice Debate

An abortion is a medical procedure. Is there a constitutional right to a heart cath? Or a cholecystectomy? Do people still have a right to decide to have those procedures done to themselves?

So are physician-assisted suicide and injecting heroin or any other drugs.
 
An abortion is a medical procedure. Is there a constitutional right to a heart cath? Or a cholecystectomy? Do people still have a right to decide to have those procedures done to themselves?

I think the opposing argument is, that if a state decides to out law heart Caths or cholecystectomies, the constitution has no mechanism to prevent that. Might be worth a state like NY or CA trying something like outlawing a common medical procedure that is not necessarily life saving and hope that they get sued over a right to privacy.
 
FWb7ziBXoAYXQJ0
 
Well, Sccoter, then is it difficult to find the corresponding right to various elements of privacy as illuminated in Griswold, Loving, and Obergefell, just to start?

I am no expert on any of these issues, for the record.

As long as you are talking about a medical procedure that an individual may decide to have done, or not have done, then it makes sense for privacy to be an issue. But I think everyone agrees that at some point during a pregnancy, considering an abortion is no longer an individual deciding on a medical procedure - it becomes an issue involving two lives and the procedure's impact on each of them. At that point it doesn't seem like a simple matter of privacy or personal choice any longer.

If you think about it, the only real question here is when does that inflection point occur. Pro-life people believe it occurs at conception, or very soon after. Pro-abortion-rights people believe it occurs much later - I guess opinions differ but maybe at viability?

The "Pro-choice" crowd was genius when they framed the argument as one about "choice" or "body autonomy" - when that is not really what the issue is at all. The issue is when does that fetus become a life worth protecting - A life with rights of its own?

I am basically a pro-life person but recognize that, especially early in a pregnancy, the mother's life should take precedence over the fetus - so that exceptions for the health of the mother, including mental health damage in instances of rape, incest, extreme youth of the mother, etc. should be made.

I realize I am a man - an old, white man at that - and so will never be in the position of being pregnant with an unwelcome baby. I know that makes my opinion repugnant to many. So be it. These are heart-wrenching situations and better support and education are needed all around.
 
Plan B prevents implantation, not fertilization. Better education on contraception is obviously needed.

I admit I know nothing about Plan B. My comment that it prevents fertilization was literally taken directly from their commercial which states that it delays ovulation, thereby avoiding fertilization. If that is incorrect you should take it up with their ad agency.
 
The "Pro-choice" crowd was genius when they framed the argument as one about "choice" or "body autonomy" - when that is not really what the issue is at all. The issue is when does that fetus become a life worth protecting - A life with rights of its own?

I think this is oversimplifying somewhat, it's not just when the fetus has rights of its own, but when the rights are prioritized over the rights of the pregnant person. Because one of the two will be losing rights and freedoms. And when people ignore that, they are treating women like incubators rather than people.

(If anyone responds to this post using the word "convenience," I may lose my mind.)
 
I think this is oversimplifying somewhat, it's not just when the fetus has rights of its own, but when the rights are prioritized over the rights of the pregnant person. Because one of the two will be losing rights and freedoms. And when people ignore that, they are treating women like incubators rather than people.

(If anyone responds to this post using the word "convenience," I may lose my mind.)

Prioritizing the hypothetical rights of a fetus over the existing rights of women to make private decisions with their physicians about their bodies is the correct frame to view this through, imo, as opposed to trying to determine when life begins.

The hypothetical I've seen, and which makes sense to me, is does the government have the right to force me to donate a kidney? In theory it would be done in the name of preserving a life. So if the government has the authority to, in effect, make a medical decision for a woman carrying a fetus for the sake of preserving a life, then would we be ok with the government forcing people to donate certain organs if it preserves a life? It's the same basic logic.
 
Prioritizing the hypothetical rights of a fetus over the existing rights of women to make private decisions with their physicians about their bodies is the correct frame to view this through, imo, as opposed to trying to determine when life begins.

The hypothetical I've seen, and which makes sense to me, is does the government have the right to force me to donate a kidney? In theory it would be done in the name of preserving a life. So if the government has the authority to, in effect, make a medical decision for a woman carrying a fetus for the sake of preserving a life, then would we be ok with the government forcing people to donate certain organs if it preserves a life? It's the same basic logic.

That hypothetical does not make much sense. A more accurate hypothetical is should be someone who has already donated the kidney be able to tell the recipient "yes you are dependent on it, but it is mine, i want it back" and be able to get it back at the expense of the recipient?
 
I think this is oversimplifying somewhat, it's not just when the fetus has rights of its own, but when the rights are prioritized over the rights of the pregnant person. Because one of the two will be losing rights and freedoms. And when people ignore that, they are treating women like incubators rather than people.

(If anyone responds to this post using the word "convenience," I may lose my mind.)

That is kind of where I was going when I said "but recognize that, especially early in a pregnancy, the mother's life should take precedence over the fetus - so that exceptions for the health of the mother, including mental health damage in instances of rape, incest, extreme youth of the mother, etc. should be made."
 
That is kind of where I was going when I said "but recognize that, especially early in a pregnancy, the mother's life should take precedence over the fetus - so that exceptions for the health of the mother, including mental health damage in instances of rape, incest, extreme youth of the mother, etc. should be made."

The mother's life is typically more endangered as a pregnancy persists, not 6 weeks after conception.
 
people really have no clue what women are dealing with. baffling when they start talking about this issue.
 
Prioritizing the hypothetical rights of a fetus over the existing rights of women to make private decisions with their physicians about their bodies is the correct frame to view this through, imo, as opposed to trying to determine when life begins.

This is the language that always gives me pause. At some point, those decisions are no longer just about her body - they are about her body and the body of the baby. Like it or not, that little fetus is alive and we all agree that it deserves protection at some point. When those protections take precedence over the private decisions the woman wants to make is the question...
 
people really have no clue what women are dealing with. baffling when they start talking about this issue.

Which is one reason why treating abortion as a private women’s issue was a bad tactical move that allowed shitty men with no clue to dominate public discourse. These conversations would be much different if scooter was regularly hearing women’s stories about their abortions instead of getting a steady diet of “right to life” discourse. Shitty men can demonize women as killing babies for convenient instead of listening to their stories.

Also if the only “fetal rights” they want is forcing women into labor, it’s not really about fetal rights.
 
Last edited:
scooter do you not have kids? if so, were you not at all present during the pregnancy?

pregnancy up through and after delivery is fucking terrifying
 
scooter do you not have kids? if so, were you not at all present during the pregnancy?

pregnancy up through and after delivery is fucking terrifying

My impression is that men in scooter’s generation weren’t expected to be active partners during pregnancy.
 
Back
Top