Started By
Message

re: When did Republicans stop caring about bodily autonomy?

Posted on 5/16/19 at 10:24 am to
Posted by BamaAtl
South of North
Member since Dec 2009
22253 posts
Posted on 5/16/19 at 10:24 am to
quote:

Perhaps, we can develop a product or strategy that we can "sell" to the public that doesn't want to have a baby.


If only Republicans didn't constantly try to bar Americans from buying said products...

Posted by oogabooga68
Member since Nov 2018
27194 posts
Posted on 5/16/19 at 10:24 am to
Everyone knows that you and other Democrats only see children as props, things to be taxed and Legislative Human Shields...

Why do you Democrats hate the born as well as the unborn?
Posted by civiltiger07
Baton Rouge
Member since Dec 2011
15062 posts
Posted on 5/16/19 at 10:24 am to
quote:

No, because an individual has a right to decide her own health decisions and the state can't force her to give up bodily autonomy for another life.


just another way to say that you believe someone has the right to kill for their own convenience.

ETA: so stop going to the rape and health of the mother stuff and just say that you want mothers to be able to kill a baby/fetus if they determine it is convenient for them.
This post was edited on 5/16/19 at 10:26 am
Posted by Bulldogblitz
In my house
Member since Dec 2018
28161 posts
Posted on 5/16/19 at 10:24 am to
it probably happened right around the time the other side decided murder was actually just a "procedure".
Posted by Jbird
Shoot the tires out!
Member since Oct 2012
90290 posts
Posted on 5/16/19 at 10:24 am to
quote:

If only Republicans didn't constantly try to bar Americans from buying said products...

Posted by therick711
South
Member since Jan 2008
26132 posts
Posted on 5/16/19 at 10:24 am to
quote:

no infant left on its own at 6 months can survive.

Not justification for killing it.



Because it is "non-viable" it can be murdered. Ipse dixit. That's the justification. Anything that can't care for itself can be killed. Let's bring our democrat murder squads to palliative care units next. Same thing.
Posted by 93and99
Dayton , Oh / Allentown , Pa
Member since Dec 2018
14400 posts
Posted on 5/16/19 at 10:25 am to
quote:

The instant that Hussein said I was required to participate in the health care industry. He caused me to be vested. So deal with it, or get rid of that requirement


Posted by oogabooga68
Member since Nov 2018
27194 posts
Posted on 5/16/19 at 10:25 am to
quote:

If only Republicans didn't constantly try to bar Americans from buying said products...


If only Democrats stopped supporting policies that ensure the suffering of millions and millions of children....

BamaAxis, why do you hate the born as well as the unborn?
Posted by beerJeep
Louisiana
Member since Nov 2016
38394 posts
Posted on 5/16/19 at 10:25 am to
quote:

No, because an individual has a right to decide her own health decisions and the state can't force her to give up bodily autonomy for another life.


But she can force another human to give up financial autonomy and 18 years of their life supporting her and her spawns lifestyle.

Hmmmmmm......
Posted by BamaAtl
South of North
Member since Dec 2009
22253 posts
Posted on 5/16/19 at 10:25 am to
quote:

She can do whatever she wants with her body


Including end her pregnancy.

quote:

There is only some autonomy due to the medical necessity of keeping another human alive.


The state cannot force you to forgo bodily autonomy to keep another human alive.
Posted by DemonKA3268
Parts Unknown
Member since Oct 2015
21240 posts
Posted on 5/16/19 at 10:25 am to
quote:

If only Republicans didn't constantly try to bar Americans from buying said products...
The coward is doing a lot of talking but not providing anything tangible. As usual, can say things but can't back it up.
Posted by CptRusty
Basket of Deplorables
Member since Aug 2011
11740 posts
Posted on 5/16/19 at 10:26 am to
quote:

Because it is "non-viable" it can be murdered. Ipse dixit. That's the justification.


*CptRusty googles "ipse dixit" *


Yup. Agreed.
Posted by Oilfieldbiology
Member since Nov 2016
42191 posts
Posted on 5/16/19 at 10:26 am to
You want to relive personal responsibility and consequences of actions by killing a child. That is what you are arguing for.
Posted by BamaAtl
South of North
Member since Dec 2009
22253 posts
Posted on 5/16/19 at 10:26 am to
quote:

You can't deal with the issue of subjecting the rights of the fetus except to declare it has no rights ipse dixit.


A fetus's rights do not supersede the rights of the woman carrying it, and the woman has a right to bodily autonomy.
Posted by FooManChoo
Member since Dec 2012
46737 posts
Posted on 5/16/19 at 10:26 am to
quote:

A non-sapient organism (1st trimester, at least) HAS no “autonomy.” It does not even have basic higher brain function, which does not develop until early in the 3rd trimester.
If it's a human being and if it's alive, it has inherent value that should prevent others from having the right to do anything they want with it. The autonomy of a person grows as they develop and are able to make decisions for themselves and take actions for self-governance. Even a child or adult with very little ability to make their own decisions and take actions as they wish still have basic rights of autonomy to their lives where someone else can't just kill them.
Posted by therick711
South
Member since Jan 2008
26132 posts
Posted on 5/16/19 at 10:26 am to
quote:

Including killing a life.


FIFY
Posted by 225bred
COYS
Member since Jun 2011
21015 posts
Posted on 5/16/19 at 10:26 am to
quote:

Nobody's arguing we should kill babies after birth.

Well, some Republicans are re: undocumented immigrant children, but I'm certainly not.




I'll admit, I laughed

You're either a troll, or mentally handicapped, perhaps both?
Posted by BamaAtl
South of North
Member since Dec 2009
22253 posts
Posted on 5/16/19 at 10:27 am to
quote:

So autonomy does give way as a matter of consent


Consent is a part of autonomy. If you consent to something, you maintain your autonomy because you chose to allow it to happen.

This isn't a hard concept.
Posted by Taxing Authority
Houston
Member since Feb 2010
63233 posts
Posted on 5/16/19 at 10:28 am to
quote:

Of course it does
Nope.
Posted by therick711
South
Member since Jan 2008
26132 posts
Posted on 5/16/19 at 10:28 am to
quote:

The state cannot force you to forgo bodily autonomy to keep another human alive.



Sure it can. See, e.g, La. R.S. § 14:74

Criminal neglect of family

A.(1) Criminal neglect of family is the desertion or intentional nonsupport:

(a) By a spouse of his or her spouse who is in destitute or necessitous circumstances; or

(b) By either parent of his minor child who is in necessitous circumstances, there being a duty established by this Section for either parent to support his child.

(2) Each parent shall have this duty without regard to the reasons and irrespective of the causes of his living separate from the other parent. The duty established by this Section shall apply retrospectively to all children born prior to the effective date of this Section.

(3) For purposes of this Subsection, the factors considered in determining whether "necessitous circumstances" exist are food, shelter, clothing, health, and with regard to minor children only, adequate education, including but not limited to public, private, or home schooling, and comfort.

B.(1) Whenever a husband has left his wife or a wife has left her husband in destitute or necessitous circumstances and has not provided means of support within thirty days thereafter, his or her failure to so provide shall be only presumptive evidence for the purpose of determining the substantive elements of this offense that at the time of leaving he or she intended desertion and nonsupport. The receipt of assistance from the Family Independence Temporary Assistance Program (FITAP) shall constitute only presumptive evidence of necessitous circumstances for purposes of proving the substantive elements of this offense. Physical incapacity which prevents a person from seeking any type of employment constitutes a defense to the charge of criminal neglect of family.

(2) Whenever a parent has left his minor child in necessitous circumstances and has not provided means of support within thirty days thereafter, his failure to so provide shall be only presumptive evidence for the purpose of determining the substantive elements of this offense that at the time of leaving the parent intended desertion and nonsupport. The receipt of assistance from the Family Independence Temporary Assistance Program (FITAP) shall constitute only presumptive evidence of necessitous circumstances for the purpose of proving the substantive elements of this offense. Physical incapacity which prevents a person from seeking any type of employment constitutes a defense to the charge of criminal neglect of family.

C. Laws attaching a privilege against the disclosure of communications between husband and wife are inapplicable to proceedings under this Section. Husband and wife are competent witnesses to testify to any relevant matter.

D.(1) Whoever commits the offense of criminal neglect of family shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars or be imprisoned for not more than six months, or both, and may be placed on probation pursuant to R.S. 15:305.

(2) If a fine is imposed, the court shall direct it to be paid in whole or in part to the spouse or to the tutor or custodian of the child, to the court approved fiduciary of the spouse or child, or to the Louisiana Department of Children and Family Services in a FITAP or Family Independence Temporary Assistance Program case or in a non-FITAP or Family Independence Temporary Assistance Program case in which the said department is rendering services, whichever is applicable; hereinafter, said payee shall be referred to as the "applicable payee." In addition, the court may issue a support order, after considering the circumstances and financial ability of the defendant, directing the defendant to pay a certain sum at such periods as the court may direct. This support shall be ordered payable to the applicable payee. The amount of support as set by the court may be increased or decreased by the court as the circumstances may require.

(3) The court may also require the defendant to enter into a recognizance, with or without surety, in order that the defendant shall make his or her personal appearance in court whenever required to do so and shall further comply with the terms of the order or of any subsequent modification thereof.

E. For the purposes of this Section, "spouse" shall mean a husband or wife.
Jump to page
Page First 3 4 5 6 7 ... 52
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 5 of 52Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram