are any of you honest enough to simply answer the question asked?

[Yonadav]

There are all kinds of things that we can't do with our bodies because bodily autonomy isn't actually a real thing. It's a rhetorical concept made up by feminists exclusively for the issue of abortion. And as I have repeatedly said, bodily autonomy simply is not part of the legal reasoning that permits abortion. If I had bodily autonomy, I would be able to fill my body up with black tar heroin. People who have a body mapping dysfunction that makes them feel that their left arm is not supposed to be a part of their body would simply be able to tell a surgeon to cut their arm off. Transsexuals would not need a professional diagnosis and extensive counseling prior to SRS.

[arewethereyet]

Body autonomy is a thing.

For instance, you can't be forced to donate a part of your body for the benefit of another person. That's not a feminist premise. So fuck off with that shit. You are capable of making better arguments, I've seen you do it.

And, you can load up on all the black tar heroin your body can take. The purchase and transport of that heroin is illegal...but if you get your hands on it, you can do whatever you want with it as to putting it into your body. I sure am not going to stop you.

Like Drich...you are going for the extreme to get a reaction.

Oh, and fuck you with the 'you people' shit.

[Yonadav]

Body autonomy is a thing.

For instance, you can't be forced to donate a part of your body for the benefit of another person.  That's not a feminist premise.  So fuck off with that shit.  You are capable of making better arguments, I've seen you do it.  

And, you can load up on all the black tar heroin your body can take.  The purchase and transport of that heroin is illegal...but if you get your hands on it, you can do whatever you want with it as to putting it into your body.  I sure am not going to stop you.

Like Drich...you are going for the extreme to get a reaction.

Oh, and fuck you with the 'you people' shit.

No, I'm not trying to get a reaction. I'm just trying to get people to argue in terms of facts, rather than the sound bites of feminist rhetoric.

[Mermaid]

It's a rhetorical concept made up by feminists exclusively for the issue of abortion.

Um. No.

[Belacqua]

you can't be forced to donate a part of your body for the benefit of another person. 

See, both sides agree on that point. That is pretty fundamental.

Where the disagreement comes is in how they define what a person is, and who has the right not to have his or her body interfered with. Anti-abortion people think of the fetus as a person with a body, and abortion forces that person to "donate"-- or completely give up -- that body for the benefit of another person (the mother). 

Naturally pro-choice people don't agree with that, based on their definition of what a person is -- when the personhood of the thing in the womb begins. 

I guess the law usually defines personhood as viability. Catholics base the idea of personhood on good old Aristotelian potential. They say that the only real ontological change happens at conception, and from there it's only a question of the fulfillment of that thingy's potential -- a change that happens all through the person's life. 

(For the record, I know that there were times in my life when, if the birth control had failed, I would have preferred my partner to get an abortion, so I don't oppose it for others either. But I understand both sides of the argument.)

[Shell B]

Firstly, you can pump your body full of heroin. You can't sell it or buy it legally, but it's not illegal to put it in your body, as far as I know. Secondly, neurological dysfunction is certainly not an example of lack of autonomy. That's lack of ability. Exceptions don't make a rule. Finally, autonomy may not be part of the legal framework for abortion rights, but it's at the center of a woman's feelings on the topic. Some women feel like the child's rights supersede their autonomy. Some women do not. That doesn't mean autonomy doesn't exist or shouldn't exist.

[The Grand Nudger]

There are all kinds of things that we can't do with our bodies because bodily autonomy isn't actually a real thing. It's a rhetorical concept made up by feminists exclusively for the issue of abortion. And as I have repeatedly said, bodily autonomy simply is not part of the legal reasoning that permits abortion. If I had bodily autonomy, I would be able to fill my body up with black tar heroin. People who have a body mapping dysfunction that makes them feel that their left arm is not supposed to be a part of their body would simply be able to tell a surgeon to cut their arm off. Transsexuals would not need a professional diagnosis and extensive counseling prior to SRS.

Compelling interest is why we don't strap women to gurneys.

[downbeatplumb]

In the history of Modern Britain by Andrew Marr I learnt that before abortions were legalised in Britain 50000 abortions a week were being done illegally by untrained back street abortionists.
The legalisation of abortion did not change the number of abortions, it changed the number of women dying from abortions.

[Pat Mustard]

you can't be forced to donate a part of your body for the benefit of another person. 

See, both sides agree on that point. That is pretty fundamental.

Where the disagreement comes is in how they define what a person is, and who has the right not to have his or her body interfered with. Anti-abortion people think of the fetus as a person with a body, and abortion forces that person to "donate"-- or completely give up -- that body for the benefit of another person (the mother). 

Naturally pro-choice people don't agree with that, based on their definition of what a person is -- when the personhood of the thing in the womb begins. 

I guess the law usually defines personhood as viability. Catholics base the idea of personhood on good old Aristotelian potential. They say that the only real ontological change happens at conception, and from there it's only a question of the fulfillment of that thingy's potential -- a change that happens all through the person's life. 

(For the record, I know that there were times in my life when, if the birth control had failed, I would have preferred my partner to get an abortion, so I don't oppose it for others either. But I understand both sides of the argument.)

Up until the 1860s the rcc based their ideology on abortion on what they considered to be actual personhood*. Hence why abortion was deemed legal by the church up to 13 weeks.

*A very subjective and unscientific approach was used, mainly dealing with the idea of ensoulment and when that happened.

[Belacqua]

Up until the 1860s the rcc based their ideology on abortion on what they considered to be actual personhood*.  Hence why abortion was deemed legal by the church up to 13 weeks.

*A very subjective and unscientific approach was used, mainly dealing with the idea of ensoulment and when that happened.

That's interesting; I didn't know that. 

Dante says somewhere that the fetus isn't ensouled until it has reached a certain stage of development. (40 days...?) Because he thought a human soul requires a form more or less human-shaped to support it. But he doesn't connect this with abortion, and I didn't know that it was official church policy.