Another Abortion Debate

[Dogknox20]

You too!!



God also made her in such as way as to have free will, right?



I'm not sure why you'd say that. Giving birth to a baby is a physically traumatic experience on the body, and plenty of mothers have suffered or died, particularly before modern medicine was available to help at the levels it now can.
If you believe God made all women in such a way as to deliver babies, I have plenty of thoughts about his design practices.



In no way am I blaming a zygote for anything. I'm defending a woman's right to bodily autonomy. I have no idea why the rate of conception from rape is even part of the argument, as I'm certainly not arguing that abortion should be limited to rape cases.



You're worried about my ability to pay?
All health programs, unemployment benefits, and the like involve levels of wastage of my taxes. I would hope that we do what we can to avoid such waste, but a level is ever-present.
I don't make my moral decisions based on whether somebody, somewhere will rort a system put in place to provide assistance to the community. That seems a slippery slope. And frankly a strange way to view the world for a Christian, although I'm honestly not meaning that to sound as judgey as I guess it does.

.
You said... God also made her in such as way as to have free will, right?

I reply: "God is LOVE!" Man was made in the image of God! Only man can love.. Dogs chicken frogs snakes pigs snails etc cannot love only man can love!
Love is = "GIVING OF SELF TO ANOTHER!"
Can't love if forced to love.. SURE...
lewisnotmiller sure God could have given man a pill or made man love but then the love would not be true love! Love has to be done with free will; an act of freely GIVING of self to another person! God gave "Free Will" so man could LOVE as God does! The marriage act is a loving act.. Both freely give to the other the loving act creates new life!
Killing a babies is NOT a free will act of Love it is not acting in God' image; it is the designs of Satan to twist love into something that kills! Satan has his hands in every abortion.. He hates you he hates all men!

 

[Willamena]

Don't feed the troll.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is copied from another thread.



Spilling off in a different direction:




My answer is simple, common sense. The apple is a part of the tree.

I'd like to invite others to weigh in on the topic of whether an unborn child is a part of its mother.

I think that if it isn't, it actually strengthens the pro-choice position.

The idea that people have a right to body modification is questionable.

OTOH, no person has the right to occupy the body of another person without their consent.

 

[Koldo]

OTOH, no person has the right to occupy the body of another person without their consent.

How did you reach this conclusion?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How did you reach this conclusion?

From the principle of bodily autonomy/bodily security.

It's included under the umbrella of "security of the person" (though that also includes rights like habeas corpus):

Security of person - Wikipedia

Security of the person is a right recognized by the UN Declaration of Human Rights as well as the foundational laws of several countries (e.g. the Charter of Rights and Freedoms here in Canada).

 

[leroy]

If a person had a heart valve installed, that valve would be a part of them.

So by your logic, you can take any human being, connect him in to your body and then legally kill him, under the argument that he is part of your body.

We simply disagree, but I honestly find your view absurd.

The only significant legal issue regarding abortion, the imperative, is that is that the State, in a democracy, not legislate on the matter. People have different opinions, left and right, up and down--none of them right, none of them wrong--and there are plenty of stupid laws on the books. But the existence of laws demanding that medical procedures be either done or not done on individuals is (what I find) an absurdity.

I asked a simple question…………under your view is it absurd punish a man that forces a woman to abort?....

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So by your logic, you can take any human being, connect him in to your body and then legally kill him, under the argument that he is part of your body.

Maybe retire the phrase "by your logic." You don't seem to be good at all at understanding the logic of others.

If you don't understand something, maybe just ask questions until you do.

 

[Koldo]

From the principle of bodily autonomy/bodily security.

It's included under the umbrella of "security of the person" (though that also includes rights like habeas corpus):

Security of person - Wikipedia

Security of the person is a right recognized by the UN Declaration of Human Rights as well as the foundational laws of several countries (e.g. the Charter of Rights and Freedoms here in Canada).

Do you mean that such a right exists on the basis of your interpretation of an article in the declaration of human rights?

I mean, think of a time before such a declaration existed. How would you reach the conclusion that such a right exists?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do you mean that such a right exists on the basis of your interpretation of an article in the declaration of human rights?

I mean, think of a time before such a declaration existed. How would you reach the conclusion that such a right exists?

I'm not willing to go down this rabbit hole with you.

 

[Koldo]

I'm not willing to go down this rabbit hole with you.

As you wish. I was trying to understand your perspective.

I will just say this:

Natural law is, as far as we can know, a human invention. Actual rights though derive from laws that can be either interpreted in whatever way is necessary to fit an agenda, or changed to suit those in power. Pointing to any law on this kind of debate is entirely superficial and redundant, since it is irrelevant to discuss over what is the law, whereas the proper topic is about what should be the law and therefore what should be the rights.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As you wish. I was trying to understand your perspective.

I will just say this:

Natural law is, as far as we can know, a human invention. Actual rights though derive from laws that can be either interpreted in whatever way is necessary to fit an agenda, or changed to suit those in power. Pointing to any law on this kind of debate is entirely superficial and redundant, since it is irrelevant to discuss over what is the law, whereas the proper topic is about what should be the law and therefore what should be the rights.

Go back to the OP. This whole debate has been about the law.

To refresh your memory, here's the question that started the discussion:

*if* you grant that the fetus/ambyo is a human, then it should be illegal to kill him?

 

[Koldo]

Go back to the OP. This whole debate has been about the law.

To refresh your memory, here's the question that started the discussion:

That quote supports what I am saying though: the topic is what the law should be. It is not about what is illegal but rather about what should be illegal.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That quote supports what I am saying though: the topic is what the law should be. It is not about what is illegal but rather about what should be illegal.

And the UNDHR represents one consensus about what the law should be.

And the Charter is a constitutional document that (in Canada, at least) all other laws must adhere to.

 

[Dogknox20]

Don't feed the troll.

Willamena Question.. Who is the troll?

 

[Koldo]

And the UNDHR represents one consensus about what the law should be.

And the Charter is a constitutional document that (in Canada, at least) all other laws must adhere to.

By those who actually signed it, with their own interpretations on what each article entails. But, more importantly, how do you get from 'There is an universal declaration of rights' to 'We should follow every single article written in there'?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

By those who actually signed it, with their own interpretations on what each article entails. But, more importantly, how do you get from 'There is an universal declaration of rights' to 'We should follow every single article written in there'?

Again:

I'm not willing to go down this rabbit hole with you.

 

[Koldo]

Again:

I am not interested in a shallow conversation though. I think we are done then?

 

[Ponder This]

I meant wholeness, as in a completeness of constituent parts, but without the implication of necessity. After all, not all women become mothers.

Okay, so you mean the unborn child is complete or whole... but is also a part of the woman. This seems like a bit of a confusing approach to the question.
You can remove spit from a woman, but there is still more spit. The spit or the hair or the fingernails aren't integral. You can only reasonably ever say you have some of a woman's spit, hair, or fingernails and not all of a woman's spit, hair, or fingernails. She will simply make more spit, hair, and fingernails. I suppose you could say that you have a single whole strand of hair of a woman plucked from the root or you could say that the woman shaved all her hair as a way to refer to all of her current hair in a particular moment.

I think a different approach may be needed to evaluate the removal of pieces of a woman. We would generally try to prevent a woman from deliberately removing her hands or her legs, but we would generally say she has a choice about whether or not she removes her hair.
The hand or the foot is not necessary for the woman to live, but it does help her in significant ways. I suppose she could remove a breast and the question would be if the breast serves a vital purpose to the woman. I think there's a lot of leeway for a woman to make decisions about what she does with her body before we might say she is really just engaged in willful self-harm.

The issue with an unborn child isn't whether or not the unborn child is a part of the woman or not. The basic question is really twofold: Is it a moral action to undertake? and Does she have (or should she have) a legal right to undertake the action (or not)?

 

[Willamena]

I think that if it isn't, it actually strengthens the pro-choice position.

The idea that people have a right to body modification is questionable.

OTOH, no person has the right to occupy the body of another person without their consent.

Well, that’s not the pro-choice position. Their position is personal choice vs. legislated obligation.

 

[Willamena]

So by your logic, you can take any human being, connect him in to your body and then legally kill him, under the argument that he is part of your body.

We simply disagree, but I honestly find your view absurd.


I asked a simple question…………under your view is it absurd punish a man that forces a woman to abort?....

You master in absurd. I bow to your skill.

I’m not going near your misplaced question.