Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Frumple]

One thing I find odd- a woman can choose whether or not to bring a child to term, but if the child's father disagrees he still has to pay child support.

The non-custodial parent pays child support. Child support's not really a gender thing. Custody is more arguable, but child support, not so much.

[Dutchling]

One thing I find odd- a woman can choose whether or not to bring a child to term, but if the child's father disagrees he still has to pay child support.

The non-custodial parent pays child support. Child support's not really a gender thing. Custody is more arguable, but child support, not so much.

The point is that if the woman doesn't want the child it will not get born in the first place, so in this case (one parent-to-be wanting the kid, the other not) child support is entirely gender-related.

Men pay, women don't have to.

[Vector]

I am honestly too frustrated by the request for a "factcheck on irreparable damage" thing to want to bother. And by the derail on women's bodily rights to men's pocketbook rights.

Let's see... Women being forced into medical procedures? "Maybe that's reasonable." Men paying for babies that THEY don't want? "That's not right!"

When it comes to saving the lives of babies we don't want, our bodies are worth less than your pocketbooks. Sounds about right.

[XXSockXX]

Men pay, women don't have to.

And that, boys, is why you use protection, like a fake ID you can show the women you sleep with. 

Leafsnail, did you see the bit about weighing rights against each other? Because religious freedom is a right as well, but I hope we all agree it doesn't justify, well, many things - animal cruelty comes to mind as a rather non-controversial example.

I'd argue that bodily integrity is a (if not the) most important basic human right, not comparable to mere freedoms like religious freedom. After all you are your body, your body is all you are and will ever be, so you should be able to decide what happens to it (or you).

[LordSlowpoke]

When it comes to saving the lives of babies we don't want, our bodies are worth less than your pocketbooks. Sounds about right.

our bodies

our

oh don't fucking drag me into your rants you little

[Vector]

I have no idea if you're being serious or not, but if you'd like to argue that that was NOT the conversation shift that just happened, go ahead. I'm done with arguing for now.

[Leafsnail]

One thing I find odd- a woman can choose whether or not to bring a child to term, but if the child's father disagrees he still has to pay child support.

Hint: it again comes down to the woman getting to choose what happens to her body.  If the child is brought to term both parents are then expected to care for them.

e: Bodily autonomy is basically the most important right, there's no weighing up to be done.

[Darvi]

e: Bodily autonomy is basically the most important right, there's no weighing up to be done.

Question: what if somebody has a transmissible disease (for the sake of the argument, let's say Ebola since that's all the rage right now &~~~), but refuses to get treatment for it and insists on going out there in public doing... peopley things (what do people even do outside?) for whatever reason. Does that fall under bodily autonomy?

[Helgoland]

Let's see... Women being forced into medical procedures? "Maybe that's reasonable." Men paying for babies that THEY don't want? "That's not right!"

Aaaand you're ignoring that the previous discussion was about late-term pregnancies only, where there's arguably been a choice to let the fetus develop that far. Plus ignoring go's point, and refusing to provide backup for rather incredible facts liek 14% of births being life-threatening.
*slow clap*


Leafsnail: You can of course hold bodily autonomy to be absolute, but I really don't see why... There's many things that are at least as important as the government not giving us compulsory flu shots.
Plus I think modern jurisdiction knows no absolute rights, there's always a weighing of interests, especially when a right comes into conflict with itself.


Edit: Darvi, I think there's precedent for treating willfully spreading AIDS as battery. Probably not what you were thinking of, though...

[XXSockXX]

e: Bodily autonomy is basically the most important right, there's no weighing up to be done.

Question: what if somebody has a transmissible disease (for the sake of the argument, let's say Ebola since that's all the rage right now &~~~), but refuses to get treatment for it and insists on going out there in public doing... peopley things (what do people even do outside?) for whatever reason. Does that fall under bodily autonomy?

That could be easily solved by putting somebody in forced quarantine, which would not impact bodily autonomy at all.

[Darvi]

e: Bodily autonomy is basically the most important right, there's no weighing up to be done.

Question: what if somebody has a transmissible disease (for the sake of the argument, let's say Ebola since that's all the rage right now &~~~), but refuses to get treatment for it and insists on going out there in public doing... peopley things (what do people even do outside?) for whatever reason. Does that fall under bodily autonomy?

That could be easily solved by putting somebody in forced quarantine, which would not impact bodily autonomy at all.

I guess that makes sense? Still not sure what bodily autonomy means.

[Helgoland]

Nobody can stick a needle in your arm if you don't want them to, basically.

[Descan]

No one would be able to strap you down and give you an ebola cure, but they can stop your movement if you're a likely transmission risk.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

You don't let them get sued if they lose a kidney to a vicious mauling by their pet crocodile.

I liked this analogy!

However, pregnant women may require a special case. Unlike kidney patients, who can continue on dialysis & get a different donor, fetuses cannot be...transplanted into another body (QUASI-METAPHOR) without the invasive violation of the woman's bodily rights. They are quite literally trapped with the mom who's giving them life-support, even when they no longer truly need it.
Leafsnail also stated that even something as unevenly-balanced as a Narcam injection shouldn't be allowed.

Meanwhile, 'not taking adequate care of her body' ranges from skydiving to deliberately poisoning/hurting herself in an effort to kill a fully-grown baby.
If the baby has personhoood, the far end of that spectrum makes the mother a criminal.

Does being conceived magically make the embryo a person?  Does hitting 22 weeks magically make the fetus a person?  There's no easy answer to this question.  However, this is all completely and utterly irrelevant to my argument - I do not care when someone "becomes a person".  I care about letting women have control over their own bodies, and making sure that they are not arbitrarily put in danger or violated just because they're pregnant.  Once the child has left the woman's body (by any method, I don't know why you thought any of those examples would throw me for a loop) this bodily autonomy argument no longer applies.

That's not what ex posto facto means.

This is a really stupid argument, I don't think you can honestly believe it works.  When an embryo or fetus is within the womb it's entirely dependent on the mother's blood supply for survival, just like all the other parts of her body and unlike those silly examples you're giving.  If it's something that is using your heart, your lungs, your blood to survive then it is part of your body (if you're about to respond with some stupid parasitic example: yes, I have no problem with people removing parasites from their bodies).  This is obviously not the case after the baby is born, the umbilical cord can simply be severed and the baby will survive without relying on the mother's organs.

The 22-weeks bit is based on fetal brain activity.

Functional maturity of the cerebral cortex is suggested by fetal and neonatal
electroencephalographic patterns...First, intermittent electroencephalograpic
bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they
become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks.

I favor 'brain-birth' and 'brain-death' when it comes to personhood.

'When the baby has left the woman's body' is the hangup point when granting personhood.
What's the definition for 'birth'? When it's no longer enveloped? When it's no longer physically connected?
Perhaps both? But then what about fingers & toes- they're not exactly enveloped. What about skinned fingers & toes? What about finger-bones only held together by ligaments? What about fingernails & hair? (skin-envelope gone, muscle-envelope gone, circulation gone)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Is the child still a part of the woman's body when it's partially free, on the way out, or has it achieved personhood (even though it's still mostly enveloped & still physically connected)? If it's a part of her body at that point, could she kill it without consequence?

Could a crazy lady (or man) with scientist friends grow a living sheath around a block of C4 and have the same sacrosanct bodily rights?


Gah, ok yeah maybe I did use it incorrectly :I (expostfacto)



oh hey, on c-section risk:

Risks[edit]
Adverse outcomes in low risk pregnancies occur in 8.6% of vaginal deliveries and 9.2% of C-section deliveries.[4]
Mother[edit]
In those who are low risk the risk of death for Caesarian sections is 13 per 100,000 and for vaginal birth 3.5 per 100,000 in the developed world.[4] The UK National Health Service gives the risk of death for the mother as three times that of a vaginal birth.[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesarean_section#Risks

[10ebbor10]

This entire discussion seems to be going all over the place. So in order to center the discussion back on track, I'll just provide some questions, which basically cover pretty much the entire discussion so far.

1. Can a person be forced to undergo a medical procedure to safe another person's life.

2. Can a person's life be ended to save another's life, knowing that both persons would die otherwise?

3. Can a person's life be ended to aid another person, if said person would suffer medically from the first person's continued existence.

4. Can a person's life be ended to aid another person.

5. Is an unborn Child a person, if yes, from what point?