Nebraska US mother sentenced to two years in prison for giving daughter abortion pills
Nebraska US mother sentenced to two years in prison for giving daughter abortion pills
Jessica Burgess pleaded guilty in July to providing an abortion after 20 weeks and tampering with human remains
You're viewing part of a thread.
It wasn’t a dodge it got my point across. “Do women, in full possession of their faculties and well informed about their options, have bodily autonomy?”
Then it shouldn't matter how far along the pregnancy is, because any rule where you say "you can't remove this from your body in the safest way possible" is infringing on that.
You will have to excuse me, i do not understand your meaning behind “forced organ donation” in this context, could you explain that?
If someone needs a kidney and you are match for them, would you support the government forcing you to donate one of yours?
"you can't remove this from your body in the safest way possible" is infringing on that.
Ahh so in my opinion, that is the crux of our different stances. I have the belief that everyone has their rights until it infringes upon my rights or the rights of others. To me, in my opinion, at some point that fetus becomes a child/person and has rights of its own, now i don't know when that is i would say 3rd trimester maybe? again in my opinion. So unless there is danger to the mother or child eventually at some point the mother should bring the child to term. I think if you hit that 7th month you should know if you want to keep the baby and bring it to term. Whether you give the child up for adoption or raise it yourself is another matter entirely.
If someone needs a kidney and you are match for them, would you support the government forcing you to donate one of yours?
No, now what does that have to do with this?
So unless there is danger to the mother or child eventually at some point the mother should bring the child to term.
Proceeding to birth is both a physical hardship and a more dangerous method for removing the fetus. Why does the state get to tell the potential mother to spend the next two months pregnant (likely missing work at some point along the way) and then go through something with a risk to their life and with potential lifelong impacts on their body? Birth isn't a costless physical act.
If someone needs a kidney and you are match for them, would you support the government forcing you to donate one of yours?
No, now what does that have to do with this?
The person in need of the kidney has a right to life and your refusal infringes on it. If you're willing to tell women they must risk their health for a potential child, you should approve of the government forcing you to risk your health for a person who needs it. It's just a balance of rights, is it not?
The person in need of the kidney has a right to life and your refusal infringes on it. If you're willing to tell women they must risk their health for a potential child, you should approve of the government forcing you to risk your health for a person who needs it. It's just a balance of rights, is it not?
I would disagree here. Their right to life cannot infringe upon my rights. In my opinion that is a different scenario. I can understand if you disagree.
You are saying that a woman in full control of her facilities and in no danger of medical complications one day before her due date should be able to abort the fetus? What about giving birth half way babies head is out of the mother, can abort the baby? What about still connected before they cut the umbilical cord? Still able to abort?
I would disagree here. Their right to life cannot infringe upon my rights.
How do you not get that this is exactly what you're demanding of pregnant women?? The fetus's right to life cannot infringe on the prospective mother. And that's just a fetus, the transplant recipient is a full unquestionable person with a myriad of relationships, obligations, and contributions to society.
You are saying that a woman in full control of her facilities and in no danger of medical complications
This is not a situation that ever exists. Birthing is a traumatic process that incurs risk of death and long-term damage to the body, even when everything is going well right up until it starts. You don't seem to know much about pregnancy.
I'm ignoring your other questions because they're stupid.
I get that, i believe i asked or infered the question earlier about when the fetus becomes a "person" is basically what this whole discussion revolves around.
You didn't want to answer the questions because while they are stupid, much like forced organ donation, they are awkward to answer and they go against "100% her body, her choice" there is a line out their that at some point aborting the fetus is "murder" what that line is? I have no idea but we have laws for things like that. Much like we have laws that can force you to do things you don't want to do for the health of others and yourself, go to jail if you are a violent criminal, go to the psych ward, court mandated therapy etc. At some point you shouldn't be able to abort a child. You want to you want to abort a child for the first, second, third, up to the fifth month? Sure no questions six and seven? Kinda pushing it in my mind eighth or ninth? Kinda seems rediculous to me.
You are right i don't know a lot about pregnancy I'm not a doctor, I've never given birth. Just what i read and have seen from friends/ family and being their for them during their recoveries.
At this point i think we are going in circles in the discussion, I'd be happy to continue but i don't see the point. I hope you have a great week and thanks for taking the time to have a semi civil conversation with me about a very charged subject.
Jumping in here. Would you accept forced blood donation? If someone desperately needed a blood transfusion and no volunteer donors come forward, would you accept a government finding an eligible person and drawing blood by force if necessary? Why or why not?
That's hard to answer. It would depend on the greater good that the forced blood donation would be for. If it is because joe billionaire needs it for some elective surgery, no. If it is for some sort of pandemic and my blood will help sure. Especially if it is like a system that incenivises the donation in some way. "Hey patient A needs blood if you donate you'll be higher up on the list for xyz" or something
The logical followup is where is that line to decide if it's "enough of a greater good" and who gets to decide? My answer to that would be people that are smarter than me and people we put in office to help make laws. Regardless of what they decide i will have an opinion about it and look to discuss it.
I also give blood quarterly anyway. Getting out of forced blood draw would be easy, recent tattoos, rusty knife of unknown origin cut your skin while you were walking, or participated in an orgy with people of questionable virtue will all get you politely asked to leave. They don't mess around with potential blood contaminants.
What about you? Yay/nay and why?
Sorry but you avoided the point of the question. In this case you are specifically the only person with acceptable blood for the transfer and it is to a person you refuse to provide blood for. That can take the form of Joe Billionaire or some other manifestation of what you might consider an "ultimate evil", but at the heart of the matter is that you do not want to participate. Would you be OK with a government forcing you to provide blood against your wishes?
Ahh OK. So would i be OK with someone doing something to me or a loved one against my wishes? No, but would i give blood in this case if it was a law, yes. Laws force you to do something potentially against your will.
Someone is driving a car swerving, driving erratically, and when the officer pulls them over the car smells of alchohol. The officer requests they do a breathalyzer or they go to the station for a blood test, refuse that and they lose their ability to drive for a year. They refuse everything, is it fair the officer can force them to not drive and take away their free will for a night throwing you in jail?
If that isn't the same thing fine. What about required vaccinations before a kid can go to public school? That policy is recently under more scrutiny since covid. For the greater good i think that is a good policy.
So your two examples of the drunk driver and vaccines are different. You don't have the right to drive or go to school. You are granted that privilege by the government. Part of those privileges involve consent to certain requirements. So in those cases, the government is simply forcing you to uphold the agreement put in place. If you used this reasoning to support your argument, it would be like saying bodily autonomy is a privilege granted by the government. Maybe if you're at a breeding age they would prevent you from sterilization (so you can procreate for the greater good). They could tell you not to get a tattoo (or go full Hitler and force you to get a tattoo).
You say you would not be OK with the law, but would comply. How far does that go? Would you support another military draft? Potentially being put into deadly situations (especially if you don't agree with the war/whatever is happening)? Forced labor if it was for "the good of the country" or some reason (maybe making a product you don't agree with e.g. drugs, guns, late term abortion kits)?
If someone were to refuse to comply with any of these laws, what should the punishment be?
Edit: What if the government tried to mandate forced abortions? If they can declare something necessary "for the greater good"?