Abortion

[JRMcC]

Yes, you are correct that we don't get to use our bodies to harm others. This is the very concept that makes it correct for a woman to choose abortion. Because included in the assumption that no one gets to use their body to harm another person is the concept that this includes a fetus.

It sounds like a fetus is considered a person in this case. The fetus person doesn't have the right to use the body of the mother. So the mother has the right to stop giving bodily support to the person inside them. I really hope I haven't misunderstood, because we might actually be getting somewhere now.

Thus, no distinction between lower case life or capital L life is made, the same evaluation applies globally.

Interesting, that clears things up for our earlier exchanges.

There is room for both our opinions, but this requires that you respect an opinion not your own. I can do that. Can you?

My angry ex-girlfriend thinks not. Maybe she's right in a way. I dunno, I'm only just starting the see the logic behind what you're saying, so I don't really have an opinion on it yet.

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

No, it logically follows from what you said. It's not an absurd idea either, see:

Logically follows if your buddist .Lol
The topic is about abortion I did not suggest for one second unwanted children are better off dead .

 

[JRMcC]

Please give a straight answer to the following point blank straight forward question:
Has anyone in this thread even implied that they were not alive at some point?

No. No one has even implied that. I'd like to say that there was a time when I was not alive.

 

[JRMcC]

Logically follows if your buddist .Lol
The topic is about abortion I did not suggest for one second unwanted children are better off dead .

I don't wanna go down this rabbit hole. Unless you really want.

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

I don't wanna go down this rabbit hole. Unless you really want.

You already plunged in I made a viable comment to the op .
Dependant on the formula we could all be better off dead .Depends how you look at it.
Abortion at early stage is already socially acceptable 80k a month in US alone.

 

[columbus]

Hypothetical scenario: Let's say you hit somebody with a car. Not their fault they were hit...you put them there. The only way they can survive is for constant use of your liver/pancreas/kidney/pick-an-organ 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

The moral argument is the same - it's your responsibility to keep them alive. They didn't have a choice. You made this happen. Now you must put aside any "inconvenience" this may have on your health, time, finances, bodily security, etc...and take responsibility for your actions and keep them alive.

Yes, absolutely, you owe them that.
If you choose behavior known to risk putting another human being at risk of requiring your bodily functions to survive, and you are the only one who can do it, you owe them. If the temporary and normal use of your system is the only way for them to survive you have to do it, because you took the chance of becoming so obligated.
Tom

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Yes, absolutely, you owe them that.
If you choose behavior known to risk putting another human being at risk of requiring your bodily functions to survive, and you are the only one who can do it, you owe them. If the temporary and normal use of your system is the only way for them to survive you have to do it, because you took the chance of becoming so obligated.
Tom

Is there legal precedent for that to happen in our current system? Should it? How to enforce it?

 

[columbus]

Is there legal precedent for that to happen in our current system? Should it? How to enforce it?

I doubt that the circumstances exactly in your hypothetical have ever arisen. A human desperately dependent on the human who put them in the position doesn't happen under any circumstances except pregnancy that I know of.
But if they did I would fully expect them to make good on the obligations.
Tom

 

[McBell]

It's not goal post moving. The conversation of whether elective early term abortion should be legal is the question of whether a woman possess bodily autonomy and moral agency.

He moved the goal posts twice in one post.
He moved it the first time going from fetus to baby and the second time going from baby to child.

 

[McBell]

The law states there has to be breath.

Source please

 

[McBell]

No. No one has even implied that. I'd like to say that there was a time when I was not alive.

So you are arguing with yourself in reply to the posts of others?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I doubt that the circumstances exactly in your hypothetical have ever arisen. A human desperately dependent on the human who put them in the position doesn't happen under any circumstances except pregnancy that I know of.
But if they did I would fully expect them to make good on the obligations.
Tom

Consistency is good. I tip my cap that you would require a person to give up their health to keep another person alive if they were responsible for putting them there in that hypothetical situation.

And if they were NOT responsible for putting that person there? But still are determined to be the only person to give up their time, health, and use of their organs to keep somebody alive?

Hence, the rape analogy. Still an obligation?

 

[columbus]

Consistency is good. I tip my cap that you would require a person to give up their health to keep another person alive if they were responsible for putting them there in that hypothetical situation.

So, are we in agreement? In the circumstances like your hypothetical that there is a unique form of obligation? Especially when the circumstances aren't some bizarre coincidence, but a common and well known outcome of ordinary behavior?
Tom

 

[MysticSang'ha]

So, are we in agreement? In the circumstances like your hypothetical that there is a unique form of obligation? Especially when the circumstances aren't some bizarre coincidence, but a common and well known outcome of ordinary behavior?
Tom

Oh no, I think a person isn't obligated to give up their bodily security. As I said, corpses have more rights than pregnant women do, so no we don't agree.

I wanted to see if a persons bodily security was considered in the argument to keep another person alive, or if it was discarded due to either the sanctity of another, due to extenuating circumstances, or for punishment. Typically from the pro-life perspective a woman's ownership over her reproductive system tends to be discarded in favor of at least those three stances...either she deserves punishment or ownership of her body becomes a moot point in favor of another persons requirement of her body.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Are you asking if there's religions where abortion is 100% wrong? Yes. Catholicism, for example. I, myself, only make moral/ethical exceptions with both mother and child would die. It's so sad, but at least you can save the mother instead of losing both.

Yes, that's what I meant, as in "it is abortion, it is forbidden, period (or full stop)".

That sounds to me like giving no regard to the mother at all

Yes, a good religious thinking should always consider exceptions and necessities.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yes, that's what I meant, as in "it is abortion, it is forbidden, period (or full stop)".

That sounds to me like giving no regard to the mother at all

Yes, a good religious thinking should always consider exceptions and necessities.

It's because the Church views it as murder, that a new human being with a soul created in the image of God is created at conception. There is a loophole in it where it could be allowed during procedures where abortion is not the intent.

 

[Bunyip]

There are a lot of religious arguments (and general political ones) against abortion. But I think that the argument, generally speaking, demonstrates the scientific illiteracy of the everyman.

So you're against abortion for whatever reason, but consider this argument from Neil DeGrasse Tyson:

"Most abortions are spontaneous and happen naturally within the human body. Most women who have such an abortion never know it because it happens within the first month. It is very, very common. So in fact the biggest abortionist, if god is responsible for what goes on in your body, is god."

Now when he says 'very common' what he means is 50-70%. That's 50-70% of all pregnancies end in a spontaneous abortion that you 1) can't control and 2) are never aware of.

So how is the anti-abortionist stance tenable given this dataset?

That is an interesting perspective, and a good point. For me the only way to prohibit abortion effectively would infringe upon the freedom of the woman in question to a degree that is untenable. We have a right I suppose to advise, support, encourage and educate women as a society, but not (I believe) to dictate to them in regard to their own body.

 

[JoStories]

Such as what?

Also, can you please use a regular font because your posts are very annoying to read.

For the last time, I am legally blind. If you cannot understand this, please please me on ignore. And the 'such as' was in reference to your remark about this topic and majority rule. I was asking about what topic you were referring to; roe v wade or SSM.

 

[Marisa]

He moved the goal posts twice in one post.
He moved it the first time going from fetus to baby and the second time going from baby to child.

Lemme back up and re-read. There's been a lot of goal post moving, and I was off in my own conversation while you guys were talking.

 

[Marisa]

Source please

There seem to be two manifestations of this law.

Born alive laws in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia