Why do conservatives believe they are entitled to a woman's uterus?

Happy_Killbot

Soldiers.

YeshuaBought

Happy_Killbot said:

Soldiers.

George Carlin once said that, and i agree with you both!

RickeyD

As a Christian, the only uterus I'm interested in is my wife's. If you are pointing to the demonic as a bisexual who advocates for the mutilation of babies in the womb, then you are advocating for your father Satan who was a murderer and a from The Beginning (John 8:44).

When a woman becomes pregnant, there is no longer bodily autonomy because two-lives are in play, not just the mother's life. When a mommy conspires with an abortionist and a facility that provides abortions to murder her baby, this mother sins against her baby and our Creator who placed that child in her womb...that child is created in the spiritual image of God.

As one who loves God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, I must say that you are a most horrid individual as you mock God's righteousness with your heresy of claiming to be a "gay Christian" in conjunction with advocating for the mutilation of babies in the womb...this is most evil and most demonic.  Please do as you have promised and don't procreate!

The Government's first duty is the protection of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Every baby that is mutilated to death via abortion is the victim of murder as their 5th and 14th Amendment due process protections have been violated by the child's mommy, the abortionist, the facility providing access for abortion. You and every godless-defiled atheist, as an advocate for the murder of babies, will answer for this most horrid crime when you stand in the Judgment of the Condemned subsequent to the Millennial Reign of Messiah Yeshua (Revelation 20:11-15). 

US Government Now Says: Life begins at conception

https://tonic.vice.com/en_us/article/yw397w/government-hhs-now-says-life-begins-at-conception

smoothie

RickeyD said:

As a Christian, the only uterus I'm interested in is my wife's

@RickeyD Thats kind a of weird thing to be interested in of a woman but I respect your desires.

RickeyD said:

 Every baby that is mutilated to death via abortion is the victim of murder as their 5th and 14th Amendment due process protections have been violated by the child's mommy, the abortionist, the facility providing access for abortion.

It seems you have forgotten our old debates already, that is a shame, they were so much fun! I hope you are having fun

https://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/citizenship-through-parents

YeshuaBought

RickeyD said:

As a Christian, the only uterus I'm interested in is my wife's. If you are pointing to the demonic as a bisexual who advocates for the mutilation of babies in the womb, then you are advocating for your father Satan who was a murderer and a from The Beginning (John 8:44).

When a woman becomes pregnant, there is no longer bodily autonomy because two-lives are in play, not just the mother's life. When a mommy conspires with an abortionist and a facility that provides abortions to murder her baby, this mother sins against her baby and our Creator who placed that child in her womb...that child is created in the spiritual image of God.

As one who loves God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, I must say that you are a most horrid individual as you mock God's righteousness with your heresy of claiming to be a "gay Christian" in conjunction with advocating for the mutilation of babies in the womb...this is most evil and most demonic.  Please do as you have promised and don't procreate!

The Government's first duty is the protection of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Every baby that is mutilated to death via abortion is the victim of murder as their 5th and 14th Amendment due process protections have been violated by the child's mommy, the abortionist, the facility providing access for abortion. You and every godless-defiled atheist, as an advocate for the murder of babies, will answer for this most horrid crime when you stand in the Judgment of the Condemned subsequent to the Millennial Reign of Messiah Yeshua (Revelation 20:11-15). 

US Government Now Says: Life begins at conception

https://tonic.vice.com/en_us/article/yw397w/government-hhs-now-says-life-begins-at-conception

Yes there is bodily choice, and you don't have the right to say what I do with my body. You have no right whatsoever to force your political opinion on me. i am not having a baby, ever. There is literally nothing you can do to change my mind, and I will abort, if I become pregnant, copy that? My body, my choice.

RickeyD

@YeshuaBought ; You are mentally and demonically sick. No woman, possessing at least a modicum of womanhood and compassion and decency, would even consider mutilating her baby. You are a child of Satan.

RickeyD

@smoothie ; You are sick spiritually and mentally...

YeshuaBought

RickeyD said:

@YeshuaBought ; You are mentally and demonically sick. No woman, possessing at least a modicum of womanhood and compassion and decency, would even consider mutilating her baby. You are a child of Satan.

You don't have the right to my body. Prolife is prorape.

smoothie

@RickeyD I am glad you care so much for my health, it really is a pleasure to hear! I assure you I am healthy however, you have nothing to worry about

atsmith49er

The decision to determine the life or death of a future child is under consideration by the mother and father, that is all. A mother cannot get an abortion without the consent of the father, and a father cannot force a mother towards abortion. Just to get it out of the way now, an absent or uninterested father has reasonably given up his decision to decide the fate of the child. That leaves it to the future mother. However once a woman becomes pregnant she must accept the consequences of birthing a child under the circumstances that it was consensual sex. There are dozens of safety precautions set in place to not have children, so if one becomes pregnant under consensual sex they must accept the bearing of that child unless both parties agree to abort the child. If it isn’t consensual sex, then whoever was raped (with evidence, also can be male or female) has the majority decision. This is because their life was unreasonably destroyed and if they are unable or don’t desire to provide proper care and love to the child then it’s best for all related parties to abort the child. So in the end, we shouldn’t and can’t determine the fate of a fetus. That’s up to the mother and father.

YeshuaBought

atsmith49er said:

The decision to determine the life or death of a future child is under consideration by the mother and father, that is all. A mother cannot get an abortion without the consent of the father, and a father cannot force a mother towards abortion. Just to get it out of the way now, an absent or uninterested father has reasonably given up his decision to decide the fate of the child. That leaves it to the future mother. However once a woman becomes pregnant she must accept the consequences of birthing a child under the circumstances that it was consensual sex. There are dozens of safety precautions set in place to not have children, so if one becomes pregnant under consensual sex they must accept the bearing of that child unless both parties agree to abort the child. If it isn’t consensual sex, then whoever was raped (with evidence, also can be male or female) has the majority decision. This is because their life was unreasonably destroyed and if they are unable or don’t desire to provide proper care and love to the child then it’s best for all related parties to abort the child. So in the end, we shouldn’t and can’t determine the fate of a fetus. That’s up to the mother and father.

The mother has the right to abort without the father's consent, because forced organ donation is not a right. I honestly think forced gestation and birth are worse than rape. I would rather be dead than pregnant, and that is my absolute moral right to choose, with or without a man's consent. my body, my choice.

atsmith49er

@YeshuaBought I never said anything about force is okay. If the woman and man is consenting to the sex, and the woman becomes pregnant then both parties must accept responsibility for the following actions that may occur. If both parties agree to an abortion or having a child, then that’s how it will be. If a man wants a child and the woman doesn’t or vice versa, then it’s based on the situation. If the woman becomes pregnant after the sex and doesn’t want the child but the man does, she has to birth the child because it was consensual and they could’ve at any point avoided this issue with precautionary measures. (Same with if a woman does and man doesn’t) However if either party states beforehand that they do not want a child and/or performs precautionary measures to not create a pregnancy but still become pregnant, it is the woman’s choice. People can have as much sex as they’d like, but they need to understand and accept the consequences of their decisions.

YeshuaBought

atsmith49er said:

@YeshuaBought I never said anything about force is okay. If the woman and man is consenting to the sex, and the woman becomes pregnant then both parties must accept responsibility for the following actions that may occur. If both parties agree to an abortion or having a child, then that’s how it will be. If a man wants a child and the woman doesn’t or vice versa, then it’s based on the situation. If the woman becomes pregnant after the sex and doesn’t want the child but the man does, she has to birth the child because it was consensual and they could’ve at any point avoided this issue with precautionary measures. (Same with if a woman does and man doesn’t) However if either party states beforehand that they do not want a child and/or performs precautionary measures to not create a pregnancy but still become pregnant, it is the woman’s choice. People can have as much sex as they’d like, but they need to understand and accept the consequences of their decisions.

I have the right to choose what to do with my body, with or without a man's permission. Rape culture is when everyone feels entitled to a woman's body, without her consent. Forced organ donation is not a right. i will never change my mind, so why do you try? Are you really just trolling, or trying to force your beliefs on other people? Mind your own business. The government has no right to my body. My uterus, my choice.

MayCaesar

atsmith49er said:

If the woman becomes pregnant after the sex and doesn’t want the child but the man does, she has to birth the child because it was consensual and they could’ve at any point avoided this issue with precautionary measures. (Same with if a woman does and man doesn’t)

This makes no sense. You are assuming that having sex implies automatic consent to giving birth to a child as soon as either party wants it, but nowhere is it actually implied in any way. 

What happens in practice, in actual, real life relationships is that a man and a woman one day talk about it and decide that they want to become parents. Then they initiate a series of unprotected sexual acts, until conception occurs - and it is at that point that the implication that the child birth will take place is applied. Even so, however, if there is no legal contract, the woman can at any point simply say, "I do not want to do it any more; I will go through abortion" - and there is no reasonable way to prohibit her from it. It would be a very immoral move, to trick one's lover like that, but "immoral" does not equal "illegal".

If a man and a woman really want to protect the choice and to incentivise the desired one, they can at any point sign a private contract prescribing penalties for either party for refusing to become a parent. Everything you need is already in place. But if you want to force this contract on people against their will, then you are doing it wrong.

There is no way to justify anti-abortion stance without implying that the woman's body to a certain extent belongs to the government and/or to her partner. Which is a very-very despicable position, reminiscent of slavery.

atsmith49er

@MayCaesar In my earlier statement, I related the issue to rape or nonconsensual sex so please look at that. We must also agree that this is only an issue from the rare circumstances of sex that cause the creation of an unwanted fetus, not relationships that have predetermined goals. My focus is as you said, moral reasoning. We agreed on the basis of the statement, and I agree there is no legal contract that can be performed to force either party into this predicament. There is no way currently, or in the foreseeable future that the government or any other governing party can forcibly create this policy. It is however my belief that this plan of action is the most reasonable towards finding a logical and fair determination towards the fetus’s future. I can only advise people to follow this agenda and hopefully spread the word of this fair determination. @YeshuaBought I will say this clearly one more time. Rape is not okay, “forced organ donation” whatever that is, is not okay. I never said they were. I said that when circumstances arise, people need to accept responsibility for their decisions. Simply through debate, let’s say you become pregnant after a drunken stupor, or simply having unprotected sex. You don’t want the child but due to his values he does. Is it right to take away a future because you’re being selfish and childish? You could’ve not had drunk sex or asked him to put on a condom or take your birth control (of course this is based on the factor on consensual sex). So you take away his decision? There’s more than one set of DNA there. It isn’t about keeping your leg, your breast, your head or anything like that. It’s about the one area where there is a 50/50 split of DNA owned by two different people. Does this inevitably affect your body? Yes. However it affects both of your lives equally. So no I’m not trolling. I’m not forcing my views on you. You are your own person. I’m merely advising you that caring about only what you feel isn’t fair and equal (please don’t do a “now you know how it feels” because that’ll just make you a hypocrite). 

Happy_Killbot

@atsmith49er If anything, the father doesn't really have a right to say the child should be born if it is against the mother's will, because the father doesn't have to suffer to make the child, so while the father should be allowed to influence the mother, he should ultimately have no decision here. To make matters worse, biology is tricky, and the man doesn't have and kind of anti-pregnancy options once engaged in sex, with the exceptions of condoms and vasectomy, one of which is not the most effective and the other which requires surgery. For this reason, it is hard to say that the man has taken full responsibility for not conceiving the child should the couple be trying to avoid pregnancy.

I do not like either side in the abortion debate, either "pro-life or pro-choice" because I see both as damage control, that is the mistake has already been made so all morally relevant options have been forsaken and something must be surrendered in order to continue forward. This is why my official stance on solving the abortion problem is a third option, which I am calling "pro-freedom" and it asserts that we must effectively decouple sex from pregnancy, such that no one gets pregnant unless both parents actively decide that is what they want. It intends to accomplish this goal through the development of contraceptive drugs, in particular a male equivalent birth control, and anti-STD drugs.

These will work to become an added barrier of protection to statistically eliminate unwanted pregnancies. If a 99% effective male birth control were developed with 80% acceptance and use by sexually active males, this would reduce the number of accidental pregnancies to just thousands per year, making any policies wither for or against irrelevant.

YeshuaBought

Happy_Killbot said:

@atsmith49er If anything, the father doesn't really have a right to say the child should be born if it is against the mother's will, because the father doesn't have to suffer to make the child, so while the father should be allowed to influence the mother, he should ultimately have no decision here. To make matters worse, biology is tricky, and the man doesn't have and kind of anti-pregnancy options once engaged in sex, with the exceptions of condoms and vasectomy, one of which is not the most effective and the other which requires surgery. For this reason, it is hard to say that the man has taken full responsibility for not conceiving the child should the couple be trying to avoid pregnancy.

I do not like either side in the abortion debate, either "pro-life or pro-choice" because I see both as damage control, that is the mistake has already been made so all morally relevant options have been forsaken and something must be surrendered in order to continue forward. This is why my official stance on solving the abortion problem is a third option, which I am calling "pro-freedom" and it asserts that we must effectively decouple sex from pregnancy, such that no one gets pregnant unless both parents actively decide that is what they want. It intends to accomplish this goal through the development of contraceptive drugs, in particular a male equivalent birth control, and anti-STD drugs.

These will work to become an added barrier of protection to statistically eliminate unwanted pregnancies. If a 99% effective male birth control were developed with 80% acceptance and use by sexually active males, this would reduce the number of accidental pregnancies to just thousands per year, making any policies wither for or against irrelevant.

I agree with you.

ZeusAres42

As far as I know Conservatives don't think they have the right to a woman's uterous. 

YeshuaBought

ZeusAres42 said:

As far as I know Conservatives don't think they have the right to a woman's uterous. 

Yes they do. Most conservatives are antichoice, so they fight for antichoice laws.

ZeusAres42

YeshuaBought said:

ZeusAres42 said:

As far as I know Conservatives don't think they have the right to a woman's uterous. 

Yes they do. Most conservatives are antichoice, so they fight for antichoice laws.

@YeshuaBought So, when you say this what you mean is why are most conservatives are pro-life? As it is it your question appears to read "Why to do conservatives think they had the right to access a woman's uterus.

In any case, this is not a representation of all the conservatives. But I noticed that you also take this into account. Hence why you were careful to use the word "most" in place of "all." 

Moreover, in regard to the abortion issue, we also need to keep in mind that the right to bodily choice does not equal the right to do whatever one likes with their body at the expense of others. If we accept this then we would also have to accept it when a suicidal terrorist says they should be able to blow themselves up whenever and wherever they like because it's their body.

By the same token, the right to life does not equal the right for one to impose and do as they please to a woman. 

Both the above reflect polarized views that fail to take into account that abortion rests on many different cases with many different individual circumstances.

ZeusAres42

MayCaesar said:

atsmith49er said:

If the woman becomes pregnant after the sex and doesn’t want the child but the man does, she has to birth the child because it was consensual and they could’ve at any point avoided this issue with precautionary measures. (Same with if a woman does and man doesn’t)

This makes no sense. You are assuming that having sex implies automatic consent to giving birth to a child as soon as either party wants it, but nowhere is it actually implied in any way. 

@MayCaesar Neither is there a unanimous agreement about abortion implied in any way either.

What happens in practice, in actual, real life relationships is that a man and a woman one day talk about it and decide that they want to become parents. Then they initiate a series of unprotected sexual acts, until conception occurs - and it is at that point that the implication that the child birth will take place is applied. Even so, however, if there is no legal contract, the woman can at any point simply say, "I do not want to do it any more; I will go through abortion" - and there is no reasonable way to prohibit her from it. It would be a very immoral move, to trick one's lover like that, but "immoral" does not equal "illegal".

Firstly, in regard to what point a woman can abort is dependent on what country and what state. If memory serves me correctly, abortion is generally prohibited once the unborn is viable.

Secondly, legality does not equate to reasonability.

Thirdly, Fathers are not second class citizens and there is definitely an ethical issue here in regard to fathers. 

If a man and a woman really want to protect the choice and to incentivise the desired one, they can at any point sign a private contract prescribing penalties for either party for refusing to become a parent. Everything you need is already in place. But if you want to force this contract on people against their will, then you are doing it wrong.

This is a fair point, at least up to an extent anyway.

There is no way to justify anti-abortion stance without implying that the woman's body to a certain extent belongs to the government and/or to her partner. Which is a very-very despicable position, reminiscent of slavery.

I cannot agree with this point however, because it seems like it is at one extreme of the spectrum on the abortion issue. Correct me if I am wrong but it appears you are saying all anti-abortion stances are reminiscent of slavery which to me doesn't sound like very just reasoning. By contrast, it seems similar to some of the pro-lifers framing abortion as murder.

YeshuaBought

ZeusAres42 said:

YeshuaBought said:

ZeusAres42 said:

As far as I know Conservatives don't think they have the right to a woman's uterous. 

Yes they do. Most conservatives are antichoice, so they fight for antichoice laws.

@YeshuaBought So, when you say this what you mean is why are most conservatives are pro-life? As it is it your question appears to read "Why to do conservatives think they had the right to access a woman's uterus.

In any case, this is not a representation of all the conservatives. But I noticed that you also take this into account. Hence why you were careful to use the word "most" in place of "all." 

Moreover, in regard to the abortion issue, we also need to keep in mind that the right to bodily choice does not equal the right to do whatever one likes with their body at the expense of others. If we accept this then we would also have to accept it when a suicidal terrorist says they should be able to blow themselves up whenever and wherever they like because it's their body.

By the same token, the right to life does not equal the right for one to impose and do as they please to a woman. 

Both the above reflect polarized views that fail to take into account that abortion rests on many different cases with many different individual circumstances.

I don't agree with you, and I never will. Most conservatives are prrolife, if you pay attention to politics, but please feel free to prove me wrong.

ZeusAres42

YeshuaBought said:

ZeusAres42 said:

YeshuaBought said:

ZeusAres42 said:

As far as I know Conservatives don't think they have the right to a woman's uterous. 

Yes they do. Most conservatives are antichoice, so they fight for antichoice laws.

@YeshuaBought So, when you say this what you mean is why are most conservatives are pro-life? As it is it your question appears to read "Why to do conservatives think they had the right to access a woman's uterus.

In any case, this is not a representation of all the conservatives. But I noticed that you also take this into account. Hence why you were careful to use the word "most" in place of "all." 

Moreover, in regard to the abortion issue, we also need to keep in mind that the right to bodily choice does not equal the right to do whatever one likes with their body at the expense of others. If we accept this then we would also have to accept it when a suicidal terrorist says they should be able to blow themselves up whenever and wherever they like because it's their body.

By the same token, the right to life does not equal the right for one to impose and do as they please to a woman. 

Both the above reflect polarized views that fail to take into account that abortion rests on many different cases with many different individual circumstances.

I don't agree with you, and I never will. Most conservatives are prrolife, if you pay attention to politics, but please feel free to prove me wrong.

@YeshuaBought I never said that most conservatives were not pro-life. Also, I am not here to prove you wrong. I would much rather have an exchange of ideas where we could both come out as a win-win situation. However, if you're motivation is basically to state you are right and I am wrong then we don't really have much to discuss in regard to the abortion debate.

YeshuaBought

ZeusAres42 said:

YeshuaBought said:

ZeusAres42 said:

YeshuaBought said:

ZeusAres42 said:

As far as I know Conservatives don't think they have the right to a woman's uterous. 

Yes they do. Most conservatives are antichoice, so they fight for antichoice laws.

@YeshuaBought So, when you say this what you mean is why are most conservatives are pro-life? As it is it your question appears to read "Why to do conservatives think they had the right to access a woman's uterus.

In any case, this is not a representation of all the conservatives. But I noticed that you also take this into account. Hence why you were careful to use the word "most" in place of "all." 

Moreover, in regard to the abortion issue, we also need to keep in mind that the right to bodily choice does not equal the right to do whatever one likes with their body at the expense of others. If we accept this then we would also have to accept it when a suicidal terrorist says they should be able to blow themselves up whenever and wherever they like because it's their body.

By the same token, the right to life does not equal the right for one to impose and do as they please to a woman. 

Both the above reflect polarized views that fail to take into account that abortion rests on many different cases with many different individual circumstances.

I don't agree with you, and I never will. Most conservatives are prrolife, if you pay attention to politics, but please feel free to prove me wrong.

@YeshuaBought I never said that most conservatives were not pro-life. Also, I am not here to prove you wrong. I would much rather have an exchange of ideas where we could both come out as a win-win situation. However, if you're motivation is basically to state you are right and I am wrong then we don't really have much to discuss in regard to the abortion debate.

You don't have the right to put words in my mouth. I actually am here to debate, but I will no longer engage with you, as you are quite obviously trolling. Have a nice day.

MayCaesar

ZeusAres42 said:

I cannot agree with this point however, because it seems like it is at one extreme of the spectrum on the abortion issue. Correct me if I am wrong but it appears you are saying all anti-abortion stances are reminiscent of slavery which to me doesn't sound like very just reasoning. By contrast, it seems similar to some of the pro-lifers framing abortion as murder. 

Stances themselves are neither reminiscent nor non-reminiscent of slavery - but societal rules implied by those stances are. If a woman cannot remove a part of her body without someone's consent, then that someone shares ownership of her body, and what do we call it when one person owns another person's body? That is pretty much the definition of slavery.

People are free to have any stances they want on the matter, and some anti-abortion stances may be grounded in a sound reasoning - however, there is no going around the fact that implementing policies in alignment with those stances severely violate the most basic human rights of the affected individuals.

ZeusAres42

MayCaesar said:

ZeusAres42 said:

I cannot agree with this point however, because it seems like it is at one extreme of the spectrum on the abortion issue. Correct me if I am wrong but it appears you are saying all anti-abortion stances are reminiscent of slavery which to me doesn't sound like very just reasoning. By contrast, it seems similar to some of the pro-lifers framing abortion as murder. 

Stances themselves are neither reminiscent nor non-reminiscent of slavery - but societal rules implied by those stances are. If a woman cannot remove a part of her body without someone's consent, then that someone shares ownership of her body, and what do we call it when one person owns another person's body? That is pretty much the definition of slavery.

People are free to have any stances they want on the matter, and some anti-abortion stances may be grounded in a sound reasoning - however, there is no going around the fact that implementing policies in alignment with those stances severely violate the most basic human rights of the affected individuals.

@MayCaesar Firstly, I was not questioning an underlying assumption that all stances were reminiscent of slavery. I was questioning your own underlying assumption that all anti-abortion stances are reminiscent of slavery.

Furthermore, you have created a rule here for one side @MayCaesar . Thus we have a problem. That rule you have created is also applicable to the other side. However, to illustrate this let me ask you the following question:

If a mother is only about a week to giving birth and then suddenly decides that she wants an abortion then what is your stance then? Also, bear in mind that this is now a viable baby; a human individual. Also bear in mind that there is a unanimous agreement to viability long before this point let alone just a week before it. And when you consider this I also want you to remember what you said above i.e "however, there is no going around the fact that implementing policies in alignment with those stances severely violate the most basic human rights of the affected individuals."

MayCaesar

@ZeusAres42

Well, I suppose one could have a purely moral anti-abortion stance, in that they believe that abortion is wrong, but still support its legality. This is a stance that is not related to advocacy for slavery in any way, indeed.

In the scenario you proposed, I would say that the woman's decision is despicable, and if that is how she treats her partner, then he better run away from her - however, ultimately, it is still her choice. From the biological perspective, it is nothing more than removing a parasite from one's body, and regardless of how much that parasite means to someone else, it is still a parasite.
In my view, abortion is a fair play for as long as the child is a part of the woman's body. It is once the child is out that the rules of the game change.

(Debra really does not like the word "parasite" for some reason.)

MichaelElpers

@MayCaesar

Based on the deifiniton of parasite...a fetus/baby is not one.

- An organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.

Also from a biological perspective the baby is hardly changing anything at all but location.  It is still receiving nutrients from the mother at her expense.

Also i would say the baby is in the mothers body I wouldnt say it is a part of it...Some consequences last longer than others.

ZeusAres42

MayCaesar said:

@ZeusAres42

Well, I suppose one could have a purely moral anti-abortion stance, in that they believe that abortion is wrong, but still support its legality. This is a stance that is not related to advocacy for slavery in any way, indeed.

Firstly, there was not an implicit meaning on my part that there is a pure moral anti-abortion stance that all abortion is wrong. My point is that when you're creating a rule for one side then you need to be careful that rule doesn't also apply to the other side. This will become more clear in a moment.

In the scenario you proposed, I would say that the woman's decision is despicable, and if that is how she treats her partner, then he better run away from her - however, ultimately, it is still her choice. From the biological perspective, it is nothing more than removing a parasite from one's body, and regardless of how much that parasite means to someone else, it is still a parasite.
In my view, abortion is a fair play for as long as the child is a part of the woman's body. It is once the child is out that the rules of the game change.

MayCaesar

The highlighted part is where you have made a mistake; both a factual error as well as a reasoning error. Remember that my scenario was about just a week before birth when a baby has deemed a viable human being. If fact, it has been deemed a viable human being long before this point let alone it. And the rule that you created in a preceding post was this: "however, there is no going around the fact that implementing policies in alignment with those stances severely violate the most basic human rights of the affected individuals." The rule you've created here also needs to be applied to the fact that at this point there is a human individual with basic human rights. In short, you cannot reasonably affirm the rule without also affirming the consequent for that rule.

Secondly, the baby is not part of the mother; it's inside the mother. And the notion that it doesn't matter until the child is born doesn't work either. I mean what then if the mother decides to have an abortion during labor; can you see the absurdity here? The rules of the game change when the child is deemed a viable human being. Fortunately, most countries in the modern world don't work in this extreme way.

Please note that my position is neither completely for or completely against abortion. I find both views polarized that simply don't work and neglect to take into account a multitude of ethical issues with many different individual circumstances. I am nither Pro-Choice or Pro-life. If you wanted to sum up my position in one then I guess you could say that I am Pro- Equilibrium with regard to the abortion issue.

YeshuaBought

ZeusAres42 said:

MayCaesar said:

@ZeusAres42

Well, I suppose one could have a purely moral anti-abortion stance, in that they believe that abortion is wrong, but still support its legality. This is a stance that is not related to advocacy for slavery in any way, indeed.

Firstly, there was not an implicit meaning on my part that there is a pure moral anti-abortion stance that all abortion is wrong. My point is that when you're creating a rule for one side then you need to be careful that rule doesn't also apply to the other side. This will become more clear in a moment.

In the scenario you proposed, I would say that the woman's decision is despicable, and if that is how she treats her partner, then he better run away from her - however, ultimately, it is still her choice. From the biological perspective, it is nothing more than removing a parasite from one's body, and regardless of how much that parasite means to someone else, it is still a parasite.
In my view, abortion is a fair play for as long as the child is a part of the woman's body. It is once the child is out that the rules of the game change.

MayCaesar

The highlighted part is where you have made a mistake; both a factual error as well as a reasoning error. Remember that my scenario was about just a week before birth when a baby has deemed a viable human being. If fact, it has been deemed a viable human being long before this point let alone it. And the rule that you created in a preceding post was this: "however, there is no going around the fact that implementing policies in alignment with those stances severely violate the most basic human rights of the affected individuals." The rule you've created here also needs to be applied to the fact that at this point there is a human individual with basic human rights. In short, you cannot reasonably affirm the rule without also affirming the consequent for that rule.

Secondly, the baby is not part of the mother; it's inside the mother. And the notion that it doesn't matter until the child is born doesn't work either. I mean what then if the mother decides to have an abortion during labor; can you see the absurdity here? The rules of the game change when the child is deemed a viable human being. Fortunately, most countries in the modern world don't work in this extreme way.

Please note that my position is neither completely for or completely against abortion. I find both views polarized that simply don't work and neglect to take into account a multitude of ethical issues with many different individual circumstances. I am nither Pro-Choice or Pro-life. If you wanted to sum up my position in one then I guess you could say that I am Pro- Equilibrium with regard to the abortion issue.

I agree. i am the same way.

MayCaesar

@MichaelElpers

I do not quite understand your objection. What exactly contradicts the definition of parasite here?


@ZeusAres42 ;

It does not matter if the parasite is a human being or not; it is still a parasite. If I start eating you alive against your will, you will be fully right to kill me on the spot to protect yourself; my rights are irrelevant when I am violating your bodily autonomy. The creature inside a woman also violates her bodily autonomy in case she does not consent to it being there, hence she has full right to remove it by any means necessary and not worry about the consequences to it.

My stance is completely self-consistent and is derived solely from basic individual rights.

No, I do not see any absurdity, and abortion during labor is a legitimate choice. It is a ridiculous choice, because it is probably the most painful way to get rid of the parasite, probably more painful than actually just giving birth - but hey, the world is full of strange people, and I will not be the one to judge.

MichaelElpers

@MayCaesar. It specifically says an organism that lives in or on an organism of an ANOTHER species.  Implying that the two species cant be the same.

The baby isnt eating the mother alive just simply using nutirents provided by her.  I dont believe the baby is violating her choice because her choices put it there.

ZeusAres42

@MayCaesar All I see here is mainly you continuing to  Frame a living viable  human individual baby as a blood sucking parasite. This is not that much different than pro-lifers framing all abortion cases as murder. 

In addition to that you you basically just keep denying what I have said as opposed to actually challenging the argument. Denying that at this point there is two viable human beings with basic individual Human rights.

All your doing here is trying to rationalize beileifs that are getting in the way of clear reasoning. And thus continue to make more errors in reason.

Happy_Killbot

The abortion debate is dumb, at the end of the day there is nothing to support either side more, both are fundamentally flawed, the working solution we have now basically comes down to arbitrary definitions of what is and is not a person, and the proposals from both sides of this debate run into serious problems.

If the pro-life camp wants to frame life as beginning at conception, declaring a zygote with unique DNA to be a person despite only being 1 cell. This of course comes with all sorts of baggage, in particular it implies that everyone is constantly attempting suicide because the body has natural killer cells that shut down non-functioning ones, and it implies that every miscarriage was an act of involuntary manslaughter.

The pro-choice camp want's to declare someone to be a person either when they have the capacity to be a person, (developed brain, organs, basic cognitive functions) if not whenever the fetus is able to function on it's own. This is of course a rather vague and impractical thing to determine, being different for everyone and with no reliable test to make this knowable. This leads to making arbitrary rules that have been the cornerstone of abortion laws for decades.

As of now, our system is little better than every judge who wants to decide if a woman should be allowed the abortion option to flip a coin. This is where we are at as a society. The only solution to the abortion debate is technological development, that will reduce or eliminate the number of unwanted pregnancies.

MayCaesar

@MichaelElpers

Fair enough, but functionally it is the same thing. Whether the creature feeding on you is the same species as you or not, it is still feeding on you. It is similar to how there is a terminological difference between cannibalism and one animal species eating another animal species, but for the actual victim of this eating the difference is irrelevant.


@ZeusAres42 ;

That is what it functionally is. That it is a proto-human is absolutely irrelevant as far as its host's well-being and autonomy is concerned.

I have exactly addressed the point by comparing the proto-human in a woman's body to me eating you alive against your will. Human rights do not let a human feed on another human against their will, and the other human is in full right to terminate the feeder by any means necessary.

MichaelElpers

@MayCaesar.  Except also i would say parasite normally also has a very negative connotation as well.  The fetus is not killing or harming the mother (theres some discomfort).  its not feeding on them (not eating the flesh of the mother) its feeding on the same nutrients the mother takes in.
Not comparable to cannibalism.

Also if the human is in full right to terminate the feeder.  If the mother forgot formula, is she allowed to let the baby starve to death by refusing to breast feed.

MichaelElpers

@Happy_Killbot

I think Francis Beckwith has the best description of a person and has the fewest flaws.

What is crucial morally is the being of a person, not his or her functioning. A human person does not come into existence when human function arises, but rather, a human person is an entity who has the natural inherent capacity to give rise to human functions, whether or not those functions are ever attained. …A human person who lacks the ability to think rationally (either because she is too young or she suffers from a disability) is still a human person because of her nature. Consequently, it makes sense to speak of a human being’s lack if and only if she is an actual person.

And clarified with

It is because an entity has an essence and falls within a natural kind that it can possess a unity of dispositions, capacities, parts and properties at a given time and can maintain identity through chang

Also for a miscarriage to be involuntary manslaughter they would have to prove negligence or recklessness of behalf of the mother.

Happy_Killbot

@MichaelElpers
I really don't like Francis Beckwith's definition, because I kind of see this as a fancy way of saying "This is a person. You can tell it's a person because of the way that it is"

It skirts all sorts of deep physical possibilities. For example, you cut someone's arm off or harvest some of their stem cells. Are these a person, since it is technically possible to turn them into a person with the right conditions?

Under his definition, the answer is yes, but that means that everyone is murdering all their potential clones millions of times every day. It just isn't a very useful definition.

If I wanted to describe or define a person, I would choose a very long definition that goes across many layers of emergence, starting at the quantum level and building up, describing each step as it pertains to human existence with focus on the critical components and specifics designating humanity.

The problem with this definition would be that it completely lacks any a moral or philosophical properties and only guarantees a physical classification.

There are numerous things a woman can do that can potentially lead to a miscarriage other than environmental factors, such as smoking, drinking, drug abuse, excessive stress, eating certain foods, or excessive caffeine intake. Any of these things could be used as evidence in a trial that would send a woman to jail (after losing her baby none the less) as a logical consequence should we decide that "life starts at conception"

Technology is the only way forward, limiting pregnancies to mothers who specifically desire to be pregnant.

MichaelElpers

@Happy_Killbot

Cutting someones arm off or harvesting stem cells would not fit under his definition.  "Natural inherent capacity".

Happy_Killbot

@MichaelElpers It is not technological feasible yet, but we are rapidly developing in these regards.

In theory, you can turn stem cells into a person, by tricking them into thinking they are in the zygote stage via nuclear reprogramming and then implanting the cells into a woman via artificial insemination.

One could also then argue from this definition that a fetus is not a person, because it is fully reliant on the mother for survival, thus it has no natural inherent capacity for person hood.

In fact, to take it a step farther the mother isn't a person because the mother relies on unnatural human made technology for survival, without such no human function can be attained, and thus does not give rise to human function without it.

ZeusAres42

Happy_Killbot said:

The abortion debate is dumb, at the end of the day there is nothing to support either side more, both are fundamentally flawed, the working solution we have now basically comes down to arbitrary definitions of what is and is not a person, and the proposals from both sides of this debate run into serious problems.

This is also something I am in agreement with.

If the pro-life camp wants to frame life as beginning at conception, declaring a zygote with unique DNA to be a person despite only being 1 cell. This of course comes with all sorts of baggage, in particular it implies that everyone is constantly attempting suicide because the body has natural killer cells that shut down non-functioning ones, and it implies that every miscarriage was an act of involuntary manslaughter.

Extreme view yes.

The pro-choice camp want's to declare someone to be a person either when they have the capacity to be a person, (developed brain, organs, basic cognitive functions) if not whenever the fetus is able to function on it's own. This is of course a rather vague and impractical thing to determine, being different for everyone and with no reliable test to make this knowable. This leads to making arbitrary rules that have been the cornerstone of abortion laws for decades.

As of now, our system is little better than every judge who wants to decide if a woman should be allowed the abortion option to flip a coin. This is where we are at as a society. The only solution to the abortion debate is technological development, that will reduce or eliminate the number of unwanted pregnancies.

Another good point. This also something I have been trying to highlight in an argument on this thread but to no avail. That these polarized views do not work. @Happy_Killbot

ZeusAres42

MayCaesar said:

@MichaelElpers

Fair enough, but functionally it is the same thing. Whether the creature feeding on you is the same species as you or not, it is still feeding on you. It is similar to how there is a terminological difference between cannibalism and one animal species eating another animal species, but for the actual victim of this eating the difference is irrelevant.


@ZeusAres42 ;

That is what it functionally is. That it is a proto-human is absolutely irrelevant as far as its host's well-being and autonomy is concerned.

I have exactly addressed the point by comparing the proto-human in a woman's body to me eating you alive against your will. Human rights do not let a human feed on another human against their will, and the other human is in full right to terminate the feeder by any means necessary.

@MayCaessar ; Again, all I see is you now framing an individual as now a proto-human (which doesn't even make any sense) instead of a parasite in regard to the scenario I presented you with. In the scenario I presented you with there is now two people with basic human rights which you advocated for previously. All you're doing by framing one of the individuals as something else is just denying the reality of the situation here in the scenario I presented you with. Sorry but your argument here is basically just a lot framing and denying.

MichaelElpers

@Happy_Killbot. Again thats not what it says.

Stem cells dont have the NATURAL capability to become humans, zygotes do.

Once you reprogrammed to behave like a zygote where it will naturally proceed to become human is where it then would become a person.

Reliance doesnt matter.  People reliant on pacemakers are people.

YeshuaBought

MichaelElpers said:

@Happy_Killbot. Again thats not what it says.

Stem cells dont have the NATURAL capability to become humans, zygotes do.

Once you reprogrammed to behave like a zygote where it will naturally proceed to become human is where it then would become a person.

Reliance doesnt matter.  People reliant on pacemakers are people.

I don't care. No one has the right to my body, but me. 

Happy_Killbot

@MichaelElpers

No, zygotes do not have the natural capacity to become a human any more than stem cells do, because a zygote relies on the mother to develop, and stem cells rely on technology to develop.

If there is reliance, then how can we say it is natural?

On another note, why does a person have to be bound to nature and an organic body to be considered a person?

Would you consider an uploaded mind a person, which lives in virtual reality? Or what about something that was human for all intents and purposes, but was not created naturally, for example creating someone entirely out of 3D printed organs?

Anyways, these problems only exist if you assume a hard definition of what is a person and what is not. Although a floating definition is less useful for semantics, it is much more useful when describing the physical world where no two things are the same thing.

MayCaesar

@MichaelElpers

I would not describe the state of a pregnant woman as "some discomfort", considering that it often disables the woman for months from being able to work, and puts her in bed for days. Regardless, the point is, if the woman does not consent to it feeding on her insides, then she can take action to enforce this lack of consent - this is what the bodily autonomy principle fundamentally is.

The baby that is out of the woman's body is an independent individual. The woman, I suppose, does not have to breast-feed it, but we as a society have agreed that it is the parents' responsibility to raise the child. Whether this is a good agreement or not is debatable, but, in any case, we no longer deal with the question of bodily autonomy here, so the argument will be different.


@ZeusAres42 ;

You refuse to interpret my argument properly and straw-man it, but I have already given you an analogy twice, which you have chosen to ignore.

First, I am not aware of a single legal system on Earth that considers an unborn child a "person" or an "individual", so the appeal to the basic rights is questionable.
But second - and more importantly - is the child is feeding on the woman's insides and is physically connected to them, hence for all purposes it is a part of the woman's body, and if the woman does not consent to it being there, then she has the right to remove it. 

I am not sure you understand what the bodily autonomy principle is. Maybe you think that you are protected from any harm under any possible circumstances, but that is not at all what it is, and it could not be that logically, as necessarily unresolvable contradictions would arise. What it is is that nobody has the right to violate another person's body against their consent, and should it happen, the latter person can defend themselves by all means necessary.

If you see any logical flaw in my reasoning in my argument, feel free to point it out. Your notion that there are two human beings with rights in question does not contradict anything I said and fully falls under the analysis I have provided several times already.

MichaelElpers

@MayCaesar. It is not feeding on her insides...it doesnt eat or feed on the mother just shares the nutrients the mother takes in.

Why wouldnt refusal to breast feed fall under the same bodily autonomy argument?  Its been said that no one has the right to feed using anothers body qothout consent...that hasnt changed.

MichaelElpers

@Happy_Killbot. We know what natural is by the definition of natural...man made things arent natural.

Things can have a natural reliance...we naturally need water.

As far as virtual reality ect goes.  Id say anything that existed once as a human and retains their identity would still be a person.

Happy_Killbot

@MichaelElpers Digital people, or "emulated minds" don't have to work like that, they can be unique people, and not necessarily based on a person that ever actually lived as an organic human.

I think my point about being natural still holds, because "natural" isn't a real thing it is a metaphysical concept. In the case of pregnancy, when can we say the pregnancy is unnatural?

Is it when the baby is grown in an artificial womb?
or 3D printed from living tissue?
What about if the mother ingests processed foods?
Or any products labeled as "natural" that came from plants and animals that don't exist in nature, as a result of selective breeding?

It isn't entirely clear when you would draw that distinction.

MayCaesar

@MichaelElpers

I am not sure I understand your argument. Are you talking about the case where the baby gets breast-fed against the woman's consent? I cannot quite imagine a scenario like this suitable for anything but a horror movie. Hypothetically, if there was a baby that somehow forced a woman to breast-feed it, then I would say that she has the right to defend herself with violence from it - but practically it never occurs.