Should a woman's bodily autonomy be disregarded when it comes to pregnancy?

[1robin]

Why isn't it relevant? Is your position that the right for a fetus to use the mothers body makes every other right disapear?

No, you are just not going to ever answer a single question I ask are you. I said no society in history has ever granted that all rights are equal. You know exactly what I am saying, you apparently have no answer, the only thing missing is your simply admitting it.


By the way what in the world have I ever said in 10,000 plus posts that made you think (or say you did) that I was suggesting or even hinting at what you stated above?

 

[oldbadger]

solutions for spina bifida, club foot, hydrocephalus.

You don't know what you're talking about.
Whilst each case is individual, there are four main 'types' of Spina Bifida, all having multiple complications.
The quality of life for a sufferer can be extremely low, sometimes with continuing agony of various types.
The average cost of life treatment in, say, the US is circa $650,000 but many families face a total $1,000,000 cost.
In some countries, specialists visit with the parents of new-born extreme Spina-Bifida babies and propose 'feed-on-demand' only, which is going to lead to the baby's death, because SB babies don't demand.

Bearing all of this in mind, you seriously would force a pregnant woman to go through with such a birth, regardless of the baby's future perpetual suffering and the parent's furture poverty and heartbreak....?

This would tell me all that I need to know about your 'moral' and 'legal' proposals. Not good.

 

[leibowde84]

I did not ask what states have done. I have said until I am sick that I don't care about legality I care about what is right. But even if every state and every human who ever existed has done so you have not answered my question. Legal precedent has no moral quality or value.

That's fine, but you do understand that, in order to change the legal status of abortion rights, the legal issues must be addressed, right? In other words, no positive movement in that direction can happen unless someone figures out how to address the legality issue. You agree with this, right?

 

[columbus]

Give me the example of a parasitic lifeform that you are not allowed to kill if you are the host.

Very young human beings who you brought into existence by choosing behavior that you knew had the chance of conceiving a child.

Tom

 

[pro4life]

You don't know what you're talking about.
Whilst each case is individual, there are four main 'types' of Spina Bifida, all having multiple complications.
The quality of life for a sufferer can be extremely low, sometimes with continuing agony of various types.
The average cost of life treatment in, say, the US is circa $650,000 but many families face a total $1,000,000 cost.
In some countries, specialists visit with the parents of new-born extreme Spina-Bifida babies and propose 'feed-on-demand' only, which is going to lead to the baby's death, because SB babies don't demand.

Bearing all of this in mind, you seriously would force a pregnant woman to go through with such a birth, regardless of the baby's future perpetual suffering and the parent's furture poverty and heartbreak....?

This would tell me all that I need to know about your 'moral' and 'legal' proposals. Not good.

As for the cost aspect, there are government programs that cover the expenses. You stuck on spina bifida and didn't talk about club foot or hydrocephalus. Yes, there are different types of spina bifida but most of them are treatable, above 90%. For the rest of the cases, there are high to fatal discrepancies. As for the fatal, there is a high chance of the infant to die anyways.
As for the club foot, the procedure is not really costly and very simple.
Hydrocephalus or meningohydrocephalus(fatal). Hydrocephalus is very easily treatable if done on the right time. Meningohydrocephalus is treatable but highly fatal if procedure had errors.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

For the record, and speaking from experience as a woman who has been pregnant more than once...

Pregnancy is NOT a mere "inconvenience."

For those who are equating it as such, please stop. You are disregarding the enormous bodily commitment to gestation, labor, and childbirth. You are also ignoring the health risks that accompany pregnancy, labor, and childbirth. And finally, you are ignoring the risk of maternal mortality that accompany pregnancy, labor, and childbirth.

To reduce all of these considerations down to an "incovenience" is to reduce a woman's reproductive health down to an "inconvenience". Championing the rights of a fetus is awfully easy when the vessel that carries it is not considered all that important.

 

[pro4life]

For the record, and speaking from experience as a woman who has been pregnant more than once...

Pregnancy is NOT a mere "inconvenience."

For those who are equating it as such, please stop. You are disregarding the enormous bodily commitment to gestation, labor, and childbirth. You are also ignoring the health risks that accompany pregnancy, labor, and childbirth. And finally, you are ignoring the risk of maternal mortality that accompany pregnancy, labor, and childbirth.

To reduce all of these considerations down to an "incovenience" is to reduce a woman's reproductive health down to an "inconvenience". Championing the rights of a fetus is awfully easy when the vessel that carries it is not considered all that important.

Of-course the mother's well-being is high priority. If the non-born baby will cause the death of the mother, then it is moral to abort the baby. But when you are speaking of your speaking of yourself as a mere "vessel", you are downgrading the mother's status. It is a privilege for mothers to carry and give birth to life and not a predicament.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Of-course the mother's well-being is high priority. If the non-born baby will cause the death of the mother, then it is moral to abort the baby. But when you are speaking of your speaking of yourself as a mere "vessel", you are downgrading the mother's status. It is a privilege for mothers to carry and give birth to life and not a predicament.

I'm speaking of the risks of complications and death.

And no, I myself do not speak of myself as a mere vessel, but the way that people talk about pregnant women around here, it sure sounds that way.

That's in particular directed to the people who call pregnancy an "inconvenience."

 

[JerryL]

You are incorrect in any context but your not even on the same page. We are not discussing historical accuracy, we are discussing textual accuracy. This is such a horrific start to a post I am not going to read the rest until I see that you can be corrected with the first mistake because if you cannot there is no point in doing so for the rest of the post. If you can admit the mistake I will respond the rest.

Ahh. So another book which is similar to the Bible (highly textually accurate, widely produced, etc) would be "Green Eggs and Ham".

Good that we have sorted out the type of "accurate" we are discussing.

 

[Koldo]

That is sufficient and the problem. It is never negligible whether the individual is human or not. In fact no other factor carries more weight that I can think of. This is getting depressing.

But it doesn't matter to me regardless of how you think or feel about it.

Let me add an exception.

It is never negligible whether it is a human life if it ever was. Without God humanity has no special significance. We are just another genetic anomalies with no more inherent value that any other bag of atoms.

If you sincerely believe in that I am glad you believe in God then.

You made the argument that the rule justifies ignoring even the potential of exceptions. If you do not know what that is evidence of the problem.

I haven't said that. Since I see no reason to grant any exception, I just apply the rule.

So whether a moral duty or value actually exists in fact is irrelevant to you. You might need an attorney. Since the irrational ship has left the harbor what excuse have you even invented to justify out killing off more humans that all religions combined without even the potential of actually being right, or even an actual right even existing.

Let me just clarify one thing: Even if morality doesn't exist objectively, it doesn't mean it doesn't actually exist.
I don't need objective morality to have morality. And the morality I have is actual.

Again since rationality and even a potential fact of the matter is no longer even a goal let me use an atheistic argument I constantly here. I suggest that without God that all morality is merely preference. I get in response "We can look at evolution (which is a theory and not an entity to begin with) and clearly see survival he goal and pattern laws on that. So even without the desire to be objectively moral how can you even claim to be consistent with materialism or naturalism. What exactly beyond your preference are you consistent with.

We can certainly see morality as being emergent from social interaction and biological composition, but generally when theists refer to objective morality they tend to refer to something that goes way beyond biology. As if objective morality was an attribute of the universe or even beyond it, that was not dependent upon biological processes. That's the objective morality that I don't believe that exists.

It is not my burden. You made a claim to knowledge. You said since every X then Y. So why is that.

Since I see no reason to grant an exception, I can not grant any exception. It is simple as that.
What is your reason to grant an exception?

Oh crap, the most boring subject in history.

So a lion eating it's own young is just fine, but a baby through no fault of it's own attached by an umbilical can be killed for any reason?

First of all, you have to concede you were redefining my use of the word 'parasite'. Since I don't call carnivores as parasites just because they eat meat.

Second, where did I say that a lion eating its own young is just fine?

Can you find me in any law, in any society, from any time, that is patterned on the idea that killing unborn humans is ok because other parasites have no rights to life. I had to write this 4 times because I cannot not even make that idea coherent.

I not only have no idea how you get there from anywhere I am becoming pretty sure I don't even want to know

It is not that that killing unborn humans is ok because other parasites have no rights to life, it is rather that the same reason that applies to why people can get rid of parasites applies to a fetus.

 

[JerryL]

Then the hypothetical question would cease being relevant to the issue. Abortion is always a result of somebody making a choice.

For example: Choosing to be raped.

 

[1robin]

But it doesn't matter to me regardless of how you think or feel about it.

I gave you the based foundations of all societal laws in this context.

If you sincerely believe in that I am glad you believe in God then.

That the inescapable conclusion according to atheist scholars like Nietzsche, Dawkins, Mackie, Ruse, and countless more and simplistic deductive reasoning. Nature cannot assign value to anything, it has no moral property, and can never tell anything what it should do. It is also the necessary inference in claims that whether the individual is human is irrelevant.

I haven't said that. Since I see no reason to grant any exception, I just apply the rule.

This emotionally based hyper semantic sensitivity is exhausting. I think I will call it quits here for today.

 

[1robin]

That's fine, but you do understand that, in order to change the legal status of abortion rights, the legal issues must be addressed, right? In other words, no positive movement in that direction can happen unless someone figures out how to address the legality issue. You agree with this, right?

There is no point in trying to change legality if we cannot agree on the moral principles so we should do that first.

Why are you still not answering my questions?

 

[1robin]

Ahh. So another book which is similar to the Bible (highly textually accurate, widely produced, etc) would be "Green Eggs and Ham".

Good that we have sorted out the type of "accurate" we are discussing.

Please do not ask me questions based on what must have been intentionally distorting my claims and then answer them your self.

If we are going to base morality on the bible or s similar book, the first necessity is to establish whether what we have represents the original text. That is only the first step and so where I started but not where anything ends. Then we need to see if is historically accurate and verify any claims that can be. Then determine if a rational case for original divine inspiration exists. Then a whole host of other things. I never even hinted at anything that would lead to your conclusion.

 

[columbus]

For example: Choosing to be raped.

"Choosing to be raped" is an oxy,moron.

Tom

 

[metis]

There is no way to know exactly what was in the original text since we don't have a single original. Even if we had such a text, that still wouldn't mean that we would have objectivity down pat since we are reading someone's take on what supposedly happened, and the vast majority of authors were not eyewitnesses, and the texts were written decades of the supposed events took place.

Again, a question I have to ask is whether a secular country like the U.S. actually should pass legislation that reflects the religious belief of some? Polls that I have seen indicate that most Americans simply do not want to return back to outlawing abortion, so doesn't "democracy" count for something?

Also, to repeat another question, how can some who believe that abortion is morally wrong then justify capital punishment? If someone says "Well, the Bible says...", that is not justification in a secular society.

 

[columbus]

Also, to repeat another question, how can some who believe that abortion is morally wrong then justify capital punishment? If someone says "Well, the Bible says...", that is not justification in a secular society.

I oppose CP and abortion, as well as a host of other pro-death choices, for about the same reasons. Nothing to do with scripture. The Bible isn't nearly pro-life enough to qualify as a moral guide.

Tom

 

[metis]

I oppose CP and abortion, as well as a host of other pro-death choices, for about the same reasons. Nothing to do with scripture. The Bible isn't nearly pro-life enough to qualify as a moral guide.

Tom

I oppose capital punishment in a society whereas there are alternatives, I personally oppose abortion except for health reasons, but I'm not willing to legislate the latter as I don't feel it's my nor the government's choice to make to tell a women that she must go to term with an unwanted pregnancy in this secular society.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Also, to repeat another question, how can some who believe that abortion is morally wrong then justify capital punishment? If someone says "Well, the Bible says...", that is not justification in a secular society.

Because I believe in justice, honor and the protection of innocent life. The group that needs to do some explaining are the ones who support abortion and are against the death penalty. Now those are some people who have a twisted idea of ethics.

 

[Koldo]

I gave you the based foundations of all societal laws in this context.

I don't see how. Please do elaborate.

That the inescapable conclusion according to atheist scholars like Nietzsche, Dawkins, Mackie, Ruse, and countless more and simplistic deductive reasoning. Nature cannot assign value to anything, it has no moral property, and can never tell anything what it should do. It is also the necessary inference in claims that whether the individual is human is irrelevant.

We have the significance that we have assigned ourselves. Yet, for some reason, you appear to downplay it. You say that nature can't assign assign value to anything, and yet here we are doing exactly that.

This emotionally based hyper semantic sensitivity is exhausting. I think I will call it quits here for today.

If you stop distorting what I am saying things will go smoother, I swear.