You made an argument, and I pointed out such a woman has a greater chance of being struck by lightning than for your argument to hold true in that particular case.
What argument was that???? You have me confused with another poster...………….. But you did , as usual , avoid : """Another big SO WHAT? The frequency has nothing to do with her right to abort...."""
Oh, so you don't know what it was....if you knew, you could state it here... But you did , as usual , avoid : """Another big SO WHAT? The frequency has nothing to do with her right to abort...."""
I find it better to use a more direct life saving example. To reword: For the same reason we can't and shouldn't force someone to give a kidney to save a life, we can't and shouldn't force a mother to bear a child.
I'll agree with you on property rights, as in treating any other human as property. But ultimately, that is not what is happening. The woman has bodily autonomy, as does everyone else. This means that no other individual can use her body for any purpose that she does not agree to. If I need her, or anyone else's, kidney to live, I cannot force them to give it to me, even if it means I die. In that exact same manner, the offspring, a separate individual as we are often reminded of, cannot force the women to provide them with any of her bodily resources either, even if it means it will die.
Actually that analogy does not work. The two are sharing a single body or parts of a body. In the case of pregnancy, there are two separate bodies, one feeding off the other, but not giving back in return.
Point of order, and I understand your point. You would not be able to revoke consent in the middle of the operation, because you would be put under for the operation. But yes, right up to the point they put the mask on your face and you go under, you can withdrawn your permission.
What if, because you committed to donate your organ, someone else's life was now on the line, and if you backed out at the last moment, they would die? For example, maybe they were going to die in a matter of days, if they didn't get that organ transplant, and if you hadn't agreed to donate to them, they could have lined up a donor transplant from someone else. You volunteering, and then withdrawing at the last moment, could end up being a death sentence to them.
By this logic, a parent cannot consent on behalf of the infant, toddler or other young child incapable of giving informed consent for any medical procedure.
That's right, in many instances parents are not allowed to give their consent, when there is a strong case that it may not be in the welfare of the child. I think your logical line of reasoning was really off on this one, you should have given it a bit more thought before posting.
It depends how you view it. If you view it all as one body (like many pro-choicers do, when they claim 'the fetus is part of the woman's body'), then one could argue that the fetus is sharing the womb with the woman. Plus, even in the case of conjoined twins, one organ might clearly be inside the bodily hemisphere of one of the twins, but the other twin may still be relying on the function of that organ for survival.
Welcome to bodily autonomy. If the criteria is whether or not a person will die without it, then we have to right to obtain the needed kidney whether anyone wants to give it or not.
You don't understand. By the logic you gave, parents do not even have the right to give consent for a minor to receive vaccines, or cleft lip repairs, or anything.
Oh please... cleft lip repair. That's a no brainer. Now imagine parents wanted to take a perfectly normal child and surgically alter them to GIVE them a cleft lip. The parents signing the consent form to give their child medical treatment is merely a formality, in most situations. It's the doctor/hospital that decides what's best for the child, in most situations. Parental consent only really matters in situations that could go either way, or are contentious for some reason. I have yet to see one case of a parent being given the opportunity to sign off on a consent form for assisted suicide of their child.
Doesn't matter, the child didn't or couldn't consent. Either the child gets the consent ability or the parent does. There is no pick and choose. Oh and for those who want to use the God doesn't make mistakes argument (not necessarily kazenatsu), then Cleft Lips are not a mistake and shouldn't be corrected, because then you would be correcting God
If the parents didn't consent to repair of a cleft lip, in America (and we're talking about middle class parents that certainly had the financial means, or a charity offered to pay for it), most likely the child would be taken away from the parents, or there would be some court order from a judge. I doubt such a situation has ever happened, but if (hypothetically) it did ever happen, you would be foolish to believe that is not what would happen.
"correcting" an unwanted baby, and correcting a cleft lip, are two very different things Nice try though.
Most people who claim to be pro-choice aren't really pro-choice they're pro-abortion. Being pro-choice means that women should have the right to choose even if they choose motherhood or adoption. These choices are despised in fact some states try and make laws to keep people away from planned Parenthood clinics that tried to offer these choices and support and help these women. That's anti-choice if someone is willing to use private donations to help a mother become a mother or put her baby up for adoption pro-choice people should 100% support that because they're choices. In most cases pro-choice people are pro 1 choice.
Out of curiosity assuming you're pro-choice, would you have a problem with a charitable organization setting up shop in the parking lot of planned Parenthood and offering different choices, support in food money and advice for a woman who keeps her baby? Would you support a charitable organization helping pregnant women find parents who want to adopt their baby and supporting them financially and emotionally through the pregnancy? Are these sorts of organizations acceptable are the choices they offered acceptable? I know if these things existing and there's a lot of so-called the pro-choice politicians really want to make that me legal to be within a certain distance of a planned Parenthood clinic. If you're pro-choice shouldn't you be pro all choices?
Support this. Last I knew, it is the anti-abortion crowd that is trying to keep women from PP clinics, even the ones that don't do abortions.
Conduct is important. First off, probably not in the parking lot. That is still private property. As such, they should not be there any more that straight protesters should be, UNLESS they have the specific clinic's permission. They should also not be trying to stop women from going into the clinic. Mind you, it's one thing to try to grab the woman's attention and make their pitch. But they cannot block. Here is the counter question. If such an organization also has their own facility of operations, can PP or other organization that provides abortions set up in their parking lot, to offer abortions as an alternative?
Why? If your pro choice why be against other choices? So it's about business not choice. Interesting. Why? The clinic offers one choice. Aren't you pro choice? They shouldn't do anything illegal like blocking people no. But the whole point of pro life is too try and stop them from having an abortion. If these organizations receive as much in federal funding as planned Parenthood does sure you should support these organizations getting that kind of funding because it's choice unless you're against choice.
