Interesting twists on the points. to clarify, here are some responses
2) of course laws inhibiting drug (legal and illiegal) use, unlawful operations, unnecessary operations, etc are about "bodily sovreignty". and being compelled to work at a job or occupation or trade that one does not want to is the same thing. They exist because government believes people can't make the right choices. The inability to view child bearing as something other than "bodily sovreignty rights" is the bias that inhibits another view outside the rigid pro choice, any time, any place, any reason mentality, I think.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a very trite argument I think...personally I have never heard of the government forcing a person to
remain in a job they hated in order to pay child support. You have every right to change jobs...whenever.
You continue to bring the entire focus of this right into the realm of when or where a fetus becomes a
person..That is and will always be everyones individual decision. As much as you want to make it a scientific
proof..It is like proving there is a god...You can never prove there is one to those who are non believers...and you cannot prove he doesnt exist either..its a philosophical question..not a factual one.. And as for the difficulties
that any woman goes thru before and after they choose, or dont choose to have an abortion..It has many
different questions to consider. If you put societal and religious thoughts into the equation, it is only a more
difficult decision. It is however usually the male dominated society that is telling women what and why they]
should not be allowed to have this choice..Starting with the Catholic churchs mandates...no abortions period..no birth control period, etc..it is a lot of the way it is carried forth. It is thru teachings and further threats of hell and
damnation...All of these issues come to bear on her decision making. She has enough to think about without all the rest of us getting the govt. involved...
This always brings to mind the people that think the point of insemination is the beginning of the
live or not live argument... Ok then if that is the point of humaness, and it should not be allowed to be terminated. Or discarded. Why then do we not go one step further, and say that a man throwing his seed away is not the same thing.? I just dont understand why people want or try to get involved in other peoples private
business. And the Constitution itself gives us the right to "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.." Isnt this
a part of that freedom. It doesnt say unless, so and so is involved, or whenever others say its ok for you to do that. Or are women supposed, no entitlement to that freedom...That they are unworthy, or not discerning enough to make these decisions on their own behalf..Along with their doctors...
I think the comparative is not trite at all. Rather, I find it unfortunately disingenuous to define the "sovereignty" of a woman's body relative to the baby within it and arbitrarily deny the overwhelming evidence that all our bodies are not sovereign to goverment regulation on many levels. This seems much more a functiuon of selective perception that an realistic view of how regulatory statutes affect how people use and can't use their bodies.
You continue to bring the entire focus of this right into the realm of when or where a fetus becomes a
person..That is and will always be everyones individual decision.
Of course we bring the focus to this level! To have missed this as the key part of the discussion for several decades is to have missed the main issue. We are not a nation, nor a culture, nor a civilization of iindividuals making up their own guidelines in total. All sociaties have structure. I admit the pro abortion group chooses to identify the unborn and non-human and outside the realm of societal concern, but that IS the debate.
If a fetus is not a person, I heartily object to my insurance dollars and tax dollars paying for health care for non-persons.
It is however usually the male dominated society that is telling women what and why they]
should not be allowed to have this choice
I think this victimization-at-the-hands-of-men approach is both factally incorrect and misleading. The Supreme court was all male when Roe v Wade was decided upon. The rights provided to women per that case ELIMINATE the right to fatherhood and guarantee the right to motherhood. Only women, not men, have a say in the life or death of the unborn, regardliess of marital status, or anything else. That is hardly a policy suggesting male-domination. All the power in this regard is, and has been, in the hands of women.
And that is what many are debating. 100% independent choice with no restrictions is not good, not fair, and clearly not in line with a society that cherishes life.
by the by...some posters have suggested that anyone can simply go to a hospital and have any surgical procedure done upon request. This is most definitely not the case. Any accredited hospital and their procedures are regulated by statute.