Slavery was a moral dilemma that plag...

Slavery was a moral dilemma that plagued us; abortion is the same

There are 95 comments on the Springfield News-Leader story from Feb 24, 2013, titled Slavery was a moral dilemma that plagued us; abortion is the same. In it, Springfield News-Leader reports that:

That is what the experts are saying. With the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, protests sprang up all over the nation, Springfield included, and the main issue at hand was how the pro-life movement needed to change the dialogue.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Springfield News-Leader.

First Prev
of 5
Next Last

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#1 Feb 24, 2013
slav·er·y
n. pl. slav·er·ies
1. The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household.
2.
a. The practice of owning slaves.
b. A mode of production in which slaves constitute the principal work force.
3. The condition of being subject or addicted to a specified influence.
4. A condition of hard work and subjection: wage slavery.

If a woman does not have bodily autonomy and the government mandates she must produce against her will and best interest what exactly does that amount too?

If a woman does not own her body, who does? The government?

This anti choice argument is grasping for straws.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#2 Feb 25, 2013
Morgana 9 wrote:
slav·er·y
n. pl. slav·er·ies
1. The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household.
2.
a. The practice of owning slaves.
b. A mode of production in which slaves constitute the principal work force.
3. The condition of being subject or addicted to a specified influence.
4. A condition of hard work and subjection: wage slavery.
If a woman does not have bodily autonomy and the government mandates she must produce against her will and best interest what exactly does that amount too?
If a woman does not own her body, who does? The government?
This anti choice argument is grasping for straws.
Who has declared that the woman does not have bodily autonomy?

Only you. The letter writer did not.

The woman you speak of can take actions of her own will and in her best interest to avoid becoming pregnant. That's "bodily autonomy", Morgana.

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#3 Feb 25, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Who has declared that the woman does not have bodily autonomy?
Only you. The letter writer did not.
The woman you speak of can take actions of her own will and in her best interest to avoid becoming pregnant. That's "bodily autonomy", Morgana.
Anyone who would tamper with overturning a law that allows women to make their own medical decision. So the letter writer most certainly did indicate an interest in allowing themselves a say over anothers medical condition based on an asinine comparison. Is playing coy your natural instinct?
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Who has declared that the woman does not have bodily autonomy?
The letter writer is equating abortion to slavery and indicating an interest in removing a woman/girls right to determine her medical decisions and best interests.
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
The woman you speak of can take actions of her own will and in her best interest to avoid becoming pregnant. That's "bodily autonomy", Morgana.
And if the precautions fail the woman can choose to abort. That is bodily autonomy Dan.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#4 Feb 25, 2013
A woman can have full autonomy, as long as she uses it exactly as others tell her. Didn't anyone explain that to you?
:)
Morgana 9 wrote:
<quoted text>
Anyone who would tamper with overturning a law that allows women to make their own medical decision. So the letter writer most certainly did indicate an interest in allowing themselves a say over anothers medical condition based on an asinine comparison. Is playing coy your natural instinct?
<quoted text>
The letter writer is equating abortion to slavery and indicating an interest in removing a woman/girls right to determine her medical decisions and best interests.
<quoted text>
And if the precautions fail the woman can choose to abort. That is bodily autonomy Dan.

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#5 Feb 26, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
A woman can have full autonomy, as long as she uses it exactly as others tell her. Didn't anyone explain that to you?
:)
<quoted text>
I believe Dan is trying to explain that to me.

Somehow it doesn't add up.

:o)
Ocean56

AOL

#6 Feb 28, 2013
Morgana 9 wrote:
<quoted text>
Anyone who would tamper with overturning a law that allows women to make their own medical decision. So the letter writer most certainly did indicate an interest in allowing themselves a say over anothers medical condition based on an asinine comparison. Is playing coy your natural instinct?
<quoted text>
The letter writer is equating abortion to slavery and indicating an interest in removing a woman/girls right to determine her medical decisions and best interests.
<quoted text>
And if the precautions fail the woman can choose to abort. That is bodily autonomy Dan.
Personally, I think that FORCING women to stay pregnant and give birth against their will is a very real form of slavery. Yet the anti-choice crowd has NO problem with THAT form of reproductive slavery, does it.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#7 Feb 28, 2013
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
Personally, I think that FORCING women to stay pregnant and give birth against their will is a very real form of slavery. Yet the anti-choice crowd has NO problem with THAT form of reproductive slavery, does it.
Straw man.

No one's "forcing" anyone to get pregnant to begin with.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#8 Feb 28, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Straw man.
No one's "forcing" anyone to get pregnant to begin with.
Sorry, Dan, but it's your post that is the strawman. She said nothing about getting pregnant. She spoke of being forced to remain pregnant.

Try for a little honesty.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#9 Feb 28, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, Dan, but it's your post that is the strawman. She said nothing about getting pregnant. She spoke of being forced to remain pregnant.
Try for a little honesty.
Lectures on "honesty" from you are a bit misplaced. You'd tell me water wasn't wet if it served your argument.

There's no forced pregnancy in play, so whining about being forced to remain so dodge the issue of why she and Morgana only claim "bodily autonomy" after the fact.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#10 Feb 28, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
"Lectures on "honesty" from you are a bit misplaced. You'd tell me water wasn't wet if it served your argument."

You're projecting.

"There's no forced pregnancy in play,"

And no one said there was. That's makes it YOUR strawman.

"so whining about being forced to remain so dodge the issue of why she and Morgana only claim "bodily autonomy" after the fact."

The argument is that not allowing a woman to decide whether or not she will REMAIN PREGNANT, is an infrigement of her bodily autonomy, and the equivalent of slavery. And it is.

So, is your position REALLY that we should only be able to make PREVENTATIVE medical decisions?
Dan

Omaha, NE

#11 Feb 28, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
"Lectures on "honesty" from you are a bit misplaced. You'd tell me water wasn't wet if it served your argument."
You're projecting.
"There's no forced pregnancy in play,"
And no one said there was. That's makes it YOUR strawman.
"so whining about being forced to remain so dodge the issue of why she and Morgana only claim "bodily autonomy" after the fact."
The argument is that not allowing a woman to decide whether or not she will REMAIN PREGNANT, is an infrigement of her bodily autonomy, and the equivalent of slavery. And it is.
So, is your position REALLY that we should only be able to make PREVENTATIVE medical decisions?
My position is that claiming bodily autonomy is ridiculous in this aspect. Engaging in intercourse involves an active decision and requires a 2nd person. Fine, but that's an exercise in autonomy, as is the assumption of the consequences of the act. Claiming "autonomy" in order to rationalize the wish to rid oneself of a circumstance of one's own creation may be technically accurate, but it's not really an act of autonomy. It's claiming it after you've ceded it.

Also, in my opinion, the developing fetus introduces a third party into the equation, so autonomy isn't in play anymore since decisions made by the woman impact more than just herself. This is where we differ on the matter, I believe.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#12 Feb 28, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
My position is that claiming bodily autonomy is ridiculous in this aspect. Engaging in intercourse involves an active decision and requires a 2nd person. Fine, but that's an exercise in autonomy, as is the assumption of the consequences of the act. Claiming "autonomy" in order to rationalize the wish to rid oneself of a circumstance of one's own creation may be technically accurate, but it's not really an act of autonomy. It's claiming it after you've ceded it.
Also, in my opinion, the developing fetus introduces a third party into the equation, so autonomy isn't in play anymore since decisions made by the woman impact more than just herself. This is where we differ on the matter, I believe.
So, you're against people being treated for lung cancer if they chose to smoke?

Being treated for an injury sustained in an accident if they chose to drive a car?

Being treated for measles if they chose to expose themselves to it by tending their child who has them?

Do you believe that someone who chooses to drink and drive should be forced to give blood or organs to someone they've injured in an accident caused by them choosing to drink and drive?

There is no "third party". There isn't even a second party, as the woman goes through the pregnancy all by herself, and is the one who runs the possible risks to life and health because of it.

Again, no one is talking about getting pregnant, but being forced to remain pregnant. Either choice she can make regarding that pregnancy IS her dealing with the consequences, whether or not anyone else approves of HOW she does so.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#13 Feb 28, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you're against people being treated for lung cancer if they chose to smoke?
Being treated for an injury sustained in an accident if they chose to drive a car?
Being treated for measles if they chose to expose themselves to it by tending their child who has them?
Do you believe that someone who chooses to drink and drive should be forced to give blood or organs to someone they've injured in an accident caused by them choosing to drink and drive?
There is no "third party". There isn't even a second party, as the woman goes through the pregnancy all by herself, and is the one who runs the possible risks to life and health because of it.
Again, no one is talking about getting pregnant, but being forced to remain pregnant. Either choice she can make regarding that pregnancy IS her dealing with the consequences, whether or not anyone else approves of HOW she does so.
No, I believe people with illnesses and accident victims should receive treatment. Not sure how that came into it.

I disagree with you that there is "no third party", of course. There is a second party (the partner in the sex act) who carries duties and responsibilities should the woman choose to continue the pregnancy. Again, I believe that the developing human being is the third party. That party also runs risks to life and health in the pregnancy. The medical community recognizes this (prenatal care); I'm not sure why you'd claim otherwise.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#14 Feb 28, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I believe people with illnesses and accident victims should receive treatment. Not sure how that came into it.
I disagree with you that there is "no third party", of course. There is a second party (the partner in the sex act) who carries duties and responsibilities should the woman choose to continue the pregnancy. Again, I believe that the developing human being is the third party. That party also runs risks to life and health in the pregnancy. The medical community recognizes this (prenatal care); I'm not sure why you'd claim otherwise.
How those came into it, is because they are all unwanted medical conditions that came about by the chosen actions of the person who has them.

How they ended up with those medical conditions doesn't dictate whether or not they are allowed treatment to rid themselves of them.

No, there only one party. The pregnant woman. She is the only one pregnant, only she incurs possible risks to life or health, and only she is legally financially responsible for any expenses during it.

You can believe the fetus is a "third party", but that is no more than your belief. It is not a fact.

You missed a question. Do you believe a person who causes an accident because they chose to drink and drive should be forced by law to give blood or organs to a person injured in that accident if they need them?
Dan

Omaha, NE

#15 Feb 28, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you're against people being treated for lung cancer if they chose to smoke?
Being treated for an injury sustained in an accident if they chose to drive a car?
Being treated for measles if they chose to expose themselves to it by tending their child who has them?
Do you believe that someone who chooses to drink and drive should be forced to give blood or organs to someone they've injured in an accident caused by them choosing to drink and drive?
There is no "third party". There isn't even a second party, as the woman goes through the pregnancy all by herself, and is the one who runs the possible risks to life and health because of it.
Again, no one is talking about getting pregnant, but being forced to remain pregnant. Either choice she can make regarding that pregnancy IS her dealing with the consequences, whether or not anyone else approves of HOW she does so.
RE: "remain pregnant"

Still, the woman is no longer autonomous. As I said, she ceded autonomy.

Now, she's subject to outside forces. She may have to wait (i.e. the South Dakota thing on another thread) she may have to travel, there's an opportunity cost now with time, money, etc. The matter has left her complete control. All that without even mention of whether or not the developing human is or isn't a factor.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#16 Feb 28, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
How those came into it, is because they are all unwanted medical conditions that came about by the chosen actions of the person who has them.
How they ended up with those medical conditions doesn't dictate whether or not they are allowed treatment to rid themselves of them.
No, there only one party. The pregnant woman. She is the only one pregnant, only she incurs possible risks to life or health, and only she is legally financially responsible for any expenses during it.
You can believe the fetus is a "third party", but that is no more than your belief. It is not a fact.
You missed a question. Do you believe a person who causes an accident because they chose to drink and drive should be forced by law to give blood or organs to a person injured in that accident if they need them?
I respectfully reject your assertion that the fetus is not a party to the pregnancy. So does the medical community. Your statement to the contrary is simply a rhetorical device or some such.

RE: the question I missed-no.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#17 Feb 28, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
How those came into it, is because they are all unwanted medical conditions that came about by the chosen actions of the person who has them.
How they ended up with those medical conditions doesn't dictate whether or not they are allowed treatment to rid themselves of them.
No, there only one party. The pregnant woman. She is the only one pregnant, only she incurs possible risks to life or health, and only she is legally financially responsible for any expenses during it.
You can believe the fetus is a "third party", but that is no more than your belief. It is not a fact.
You missed a question. Do you believe a person who causes an accident because they chose to drink and drive should be forced by law to give blood or organs to a person injured in that accident if they need them?
Recall that the partner is indeed financially responsible should the woman choose to carry the pregnancy to term.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#18 Feb 28, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
A woman can have full autonomy, as long as she uses it exactly as others tell her. Didn't anyone explain that to you?
:)
<quoted text>
This is the autonomy you and I have now.

Neither you nor I can do anything we wish with our own bodies without restriction.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#19 Feb 28, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
RE: "remain pregnant"
Still, the woman is no longer autonomous. As I said, she ceded autonomy.
Now, she's subject to outside forces. She may have to wait (i.e. the South Dakota thing on another thread) she may have to travel, there's an opportunity cost now with time, money, etc. The matter has left her complete control. All that without even mention of whether or not the developing human is or isn't a factor.
You are wrong. The woman is always autonomous. That is why abortion is legal. Restrictions don't change that, even if they are a lame attempt to circumvent it.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#20 Feb 28, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
I respectfully reject your assertion that the fetus is not a party to the pregnancy. So does the medical community. Your statement to the contrary is simply a rhetorical device or some such.
RE: the question I missed-no.
I know you reject it. That changes nothing.

No, the medical community does not disagree. What nonsense.

So, no. Why then do you believe that the woman must donate her uterus, and the use of all her bodily systems to sustain a pregnancy against her will just because her actions caused that unwanted medical condition?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Abortion Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheists' problem with the Bible (Sep '09) 2 hr thetruth 7,492
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 3 hr momma chamberlin 309,895
News Federal Court Blocks One Of The Harshest Aborti... 16 hr cpeter1313 1
News Alabama House votes to ban abortion clinics nea... 16 hr cpeter1313 1
News Tennessee Republican who pressured mistress to ... Tue FedUpMomma 13
Miss Jenny Abortion Procedure (Apr '14) Tue miychi 33
abortion 0780343859wts hap in Kokstad, Queens t... Tue dr hawa 1
More from around the web