re: When did Republicans stop caring about bodily autonomy?

quote:

---

The state didn't put the baby in the woman.

---

Let's leave Roy Moore and Trump's mistresses out of this.

Regardless of what the state put in her, why does it get to force her to keep it in regardless of her wishes?

quote:

---

If the mother's health was at great risk (even not up to death), or if the child was incompatible with life, they may so choose.

---

And that may very well be something that the hypothetical couple must consider, particularly when framed in context of considering IVF. All of the factors that contribute to the couple being forced into infertility treatments in the first place also are significant obstacles to taking the pregnancy to term and the baby being 100% healthy.

That said, even you have to acknowledge that this scenario is a mere fraction of a fraction, and these parents would NEVER terminate a non-viable pregnancy for convenience (which is 9 of every 10 abortions).

You honestly have to hope she doesn’t have any kids of her own considering she has spent 30 pages telling us how babies aren’t human and deserving of any rights.

Very sad existence.

quote:

---

..how many articles do you think exist that say a 6-week old fetus is compatible with life outside the womb?

---

Let's break it down in simple terms that you will understand. A baby, whether a 6 week old fetus (keeping up so far?) and a 6 week old baby are both non viable. Quit saying if they have a caretaker. It's the same scenario, if both are left alone, they will both die. It's just that simple. So neither is viable, just like your arguments.

quote:

---

Regardless of what the state put in her, why does it get to force her to keep it in regardless of her wishes?

---

It doesn't.

The state is just preventing her from killing it. That this means she ends up keeping it is a function of her own actions and biological reality.

quote:

---

Which makes no sense.

The pregnant woman is the one looking to be made "better" by eliminating the baby.

---

You're really bad at understanding analogies - I think it's a great insight into why you're so shitty at arguing your points, and devolve into drivel after a post or two.

The donor, without state intervention, makes a choice that is better for them - 2 kidneys, no transplant. With state intervention, they are forced to make a choice that is harmful to them - transplant - and save the life of another human regardless of their desire to do so.

CLEARLY the analogy was set up so the donor was the woman and the recipient was the fetus. Aghast at just how vehemently you argued against it when the basic concept flew over your head by that much.

quote:

---

The rights of one don't dictate that the other lose all autonomy

---

Nine months of inconvenience and then give the baby up for adoption VS ripping a baby to pieces and throwing it in the trash killing it and ending its chance at life.

Which one do you think has their rights effected more?

Wait you're in here arguing about government over reach by the state protecting homo sapien life but you think I should be forced to have government ran health insurance just for existing?

quote:

---

But being in-utero does?

---

That's not a choice of bodily autonomy.

If I, through my own actions or neglect............create a situation where you are stuck on a boat at sea with me..........meaning that now...........you're going to need to eat my rations too..........and I shoot your arse to ensure I have enough food to get to port........the state is not gonna look kindly upon this decision.