FoxHastings said: ↑ NO, we are ALL BORN with the right of bodily autonomy. RvW protected women's right to bodily autonomy by saying abortion can't be made illegal. IF abortion is banned that takes away women's right to bodily autonomy. NO, and I didn't say it did, DID I ?....Did you have a meaningful, relevant POINT here? Instead of nit picking with irrelevant crap why don't you read this post of mine you just quoted...READ it..THINK ....every word is true.
What has that got to do with anything? Should everything be legal? Should every medical procedure be illegal? """"But do keep up your endless irrelevant questions and total lack of a point. ...oh, I see you did... FoxHastings, Yesterday at 7:02 AM
Should female genital mutilation be designated as a medical procedure and legalised? What about if there were women who wanted to have it performed on them?
I see....so you're comparing genital mutilation to abortion? F'ing hell... Would I go out of my way to voice that I would want it legalized? No, but in the same respect I don't give a rats ass if one wants to be stupid enough to mutilate their genitals.
Of course not....why would you ask? Female genital mutilation is done with out the consent of the minor child who has it done whether they want it or not.... What? You couldn't address my posts so had to make up some silly issue???
There is no comparison between abortion and other medical procedures because abortion is unique. Women are the source of eggs. Women are born with all their eggs. Those eggs are directly linked to the woman's mother and etcetera back in time to unseen eons. Life is a continuum. Deciding when "life" begins is totally arbitrary. A woman has to go through the months of fetal development. A woman has to go through the pain of bearing. The decisions involved should be up to the woman, with as much support as she requests that can be provided. This seems difficult for some to comprehend, but it is quite simple.
I think it all depends on how we regard the unborn. That may change at what state of development he/she/it is in. Is that an unborn baby or is it just a clump of cells attached to the mother? If the unborn is to be regarded as a person and as our equal, then you've got bodily autonomy rights clashing against right to life. Bodily autonomy is not absolute. It can be argued that it shouldn't be upheld when another important right or value clashes with it. The military draft also comes immediately to mind. The unborn didn't get where it did by its own choice. And absent rape, the mother had something to do with putting the unborn in this predicament. If an assailant grabbed you against your will and lifted you up and held you over a cliff, would you consider their bodily autonomy at that point and say it is ok if they drop you to your death, or would you argue that they have a responsibility to put you back down safely? I find both extremes of this debate nonsensical. A freshly fertilized egg is not a being that I regard as my equal morally speaking. A baby seconds before birth is. Where along the line of fetal development the change happens I am unsure.
In the words of the late great George Carlin: “People say life begins at conception, I say life began about a billion years ago and it’s a continuous process”
. As NOT born. One has to be BORN to have rights. NOPE, no member of the Armed Forces is required to give a part of their body, heart, liver, blood, kidney to anyone. Not even criminals are forced to. Pregnant women certainly shouldn't be forced to. So what??? Getting pregnant is not a crime punishable by losing one's right to bodily autonomy. Uh, I don't think you have a good grasp of what bodily autonomy means.. I'll help you out...it's at viability (23-24 weeks) and at that stage fetuses are given PROTECTION (NOT RIGHTS) and it is illegal to abort after 23 weeks.
The same reason that you mentioned MILK a couple of years ago. It's called an analogy.. Is that only okay when you do it?
Yes, that's what it's used for, but I'm talking about only for adult women, who want the procedure, but banned for children.
It's an analogy. I'm certainly not EQUATING it with abortion if that's what you mean. Well if a woman WANTED it done, then isn't it violating her right to bodily autonomy for the procedure to not be available in the health system?
Below is the full context of what I said. Your edited version of what I said left out an important part, which I bolded below. Clearly I don’t care if a woman wants to mutilate her genitals. If you want to mutilate your genitals, I say go for it. Enjoy.
Yes, but that's not you saying that the procedure should be in the health system. You attempted to conveniently get around it!
Nope. It’s not an issue I would go out of my way to fight for. But if it was legalized I wouldn’t care. I get it, you’ve gotten beaten up over the abortion issue so you’re looking for any kind of win you can get. Sorry, it’s just not here. Legalize the crap out of genital mutilation all you like. Enjoy.
So if Roe v Wade is overturned, abortion becomes illegal, right? So if Roe v Wade is overturned, women will loose the right to bodily autonomy?
If you don't know the amount then why are you upset about it? And if you're not a US citizen, why do you care?