IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags abortion issues , abortion laws , Texas issues

Reply
Old 21st October 2014, 04:05 PM   #241
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 23,522
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Lol, yeah. But Dallas has a few hospitals that are not religiously affiliated and further, there are still abortion clinics open there.
There are 4 non-religiously affiliated hospitals within 10 miles of her. She is a partner at one of them and I don't see them revoking her privileges for that. I'd have to double-check the bylaws to be sure, but there's nothing in the partnership agreement that would bar her from having privileges while being an abortionist. A huge group of OB-GYNs are also partners (and a large contingent of FPs who do OB) and if they all decided to open an abortion clinic, I don't think the hospital would stop them. But I know most of them personally and the ones I know well would not perform abortions. One even refuses to refer out.
Dallas is one of the biggest cities in the state and yet only four hospitals near your wife are non-religious. I imagine some of the others, such as Children's, rely heavily on local contributions and may have some similar stance against abortions to protect that revenue stream. So, we agree that a doctor who is doing abortions in Dallas is limiting their access to many very good hospitals in town.

Take that practice out to Lubbock or Tyler and see how possible it is to stay in the doctor business while also providing abortions. It is more than just a moral decision, it is a financial decision. A very difficult financial decision for most. The law just increased the financial difficulty for doctors.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2014, 06:05 PM   #242
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post

There is no compelling reason to kill newborns. Besides, unlike fetuses prior to viability they are autonomous and self aware.
Misspoke. They are not entirely dependent on any single person.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2014, 08:41 PM   #243
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 11,799
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
<snip!> If different communities have different constructs, that should be up to them to set.
Like burning the flag as a form of protest? Texas should be able to legislate against that, right? If there's anything that "the community" reviles (more than abortion) it would probably be burning the Stars 'n Stripes.

Quote:
In 1984, in front of the Dallas City Hall, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag as a means of protest against Reagan administration policies. Johnson was tried and convicted under a Texas law outlawing flag desecration. He was sentenced to one year in jail and assessed a $2,000 fine. After the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction, the case went to the Supreme Court...In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that Johnson's burning of a flag was protected expression under the First Amendment. Link
Constitutional rights are absolute pardner. You don't have to like them but you do have to respect them. Community standards have nothing to do with it.
newyorkguy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2014, 08:43 PM   #244
xjx388
Moderator
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,062
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
  1. You are the one that places importance in potential and a full compliment of genes. Sperm and egg in a petri dish have the potential to become a human being. You are not being morally consistent.
  2. Might The body can abort the fetus at any time. There is nothing special about having a brain and heart. All mammals and many other animals have that.
  3. That's not true at all. A skin cell can become something else.
  4. It's called reason by analogy. That something has the parts and potential to be something doesn't make it that thing.
  5. There is no compelling reason to kill newborns. Besides, unlike fetuses prior to viability they are autonomous and self aware.
  6. It's critical to this discussion. What we deem as human is memories, self awareness, plans for the future, the ability to suffer.
  7. (see car example) Just because the see a pile of parts and call it a car doesn't make it a cr.
  8. Viability and the capability to suffer and be aware of existence at least a rudimentary level. There is no precise moment (see Xenus paradox).
  9. Memories, self awareness, the ability to feel pain, the ability to suffer, the ability to plan for the future, the instinct to survive.
  10. Viability, self awareness, the ability to feel pain, the ability to suffer.
What youdeem as human is memories, etc. You keep making that fundamental mistake. The people of Texas disagree with you. You cannot objectively prove that you are right anymore than I can. We are making philosophical arguments.

And we probably aren't even that far apart. It seems from the above that you would tend to draw a line around the 22-24 week area (correct me if I'm wrong). I could probably live with that if that's what my State decided. My overriding point isn't to try to convince anyone that my line is the correct line. I'm only arguing that there is no correct line and so it has to be an arbitrary line based on philosophical distinctions. And those can be different in different jurisdictions.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2014, 08:45 PM   #245
xjx388
Moderator
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,062
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
Like burning the flag as a form of protest? Texas should be able to legislate against that, right? If there's anything that "the community" reviles (more than abortion) it would probably be burning the Stars 'n Stripes.



Constitutional rights are absolute pardner. You don't have to like them but you do have to respect them. Community standards have nothing to do with it.
That is very different. Burning a flag doesn't harm anyone. It might offend people, but who cares about that.

Making terroristic threats is not protected by free speech on the other hand. Neither is inciting a riot. Free speech is not absolute.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2014, 09:13 PM   #246
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 11,799
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
That is very different. <snip>
If SCOTUS had UPHELD Texas' new abortion law I might agree with you. But a federal court invalidated it and SCOTUS upheld the lower court.

For pages you've been insisting "the community" should have the right to enforce its standards. Obviously if it's community standards vs. Constitutional rights the latter is going to prevail. You can argue all you like. The irony here is, while this thread has been going on the law you have been defending was overturned by a federal court. It's a moot point.

Have a great day!
newyorkguy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2014, 02:56 AM   #247
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
What youdeem as human is memories, etc. You keep making that fundamental mistake. The people of Texas disagree with you. You cannot objectively prove that you are right anymore than I can.
So long as you allow that sperm and ovum are human beings. People once argued that blacks are not the same species as other humans. Either difference matter or they don't. Human beings are self aware creatures that can plan for the future. Fetuses are not. We protect being that are moral agents. We extend this right to all living breathing humans unless they are in a persistent vegetative state for a reason.

Quote:
We are making philosophical arguments.
One could philosophically argue that chimps are human. They have more in common with human beings than a fetus. They have form and function that humans do and that fetuses do not have.

Quote:
My overriding point isn't to try to convince anyone that my line is the correct line. I'm only arguing that there is no correct line and so it has to be an arbitrary line based on philosophical distinctions. And those can be different in different jurisdictions.
If and when there is a scientific basis for a fetus to be a human being then sperm and ovum are deserving of protection from the people who place an arbitrary line at conception. I have provided an objective and scientific basis for defining a human being. People can believe whatever they like but they have no rational basis for doing so.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2014, 03:47 AM   #248
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 51,403
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
Dallas is one of the biggest cities in the state and yet only four hospitals near your wife are non-religious. I imagine some of the others, such as Children's, rely heavily on local contributions and may have some similar stance against abortions to protect that revenue stream. So, we agree that a doctor who is doing abortions in Dallas is limiting their access to many very good hospitals in town.

Take that practice out to Lubbock or Tyler and see how possible it is to stay in the doctor business while also providing abortions. It is more than just a moral decision, it is a financial decision. A very difficult financial decision for most. The law just increased the financial difficulty for doctors.
And how many of the hospitals is saving the life of a woman with an abortion a firing offence?

link

Clearly the moral and ethical response is to let the slut die. After all it was a catholic hospital and you can't force them to do an abortion.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2014, 11:41 AM   #249
cosmicaug
Graduate Poster
 
cosmicaug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,497
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
1That's a whole 'nother ethical argument. But this particular argument isn't about what may or may not be theoretically possible. A skin cell, in it's natural state, will never be anything other than a skin cell.
  1. You are the one that places importance in potential and a full compliment of genes. Sperm and egg in a petri dish have the potential to become a human being. You are not being morally consistent.
You are both diploidist scum! Just sayin'!
__________________
--
August Pamplona
cosmicaug is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2014, 11:47 AM   #250
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 23,522
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
And how many of the hospitals is saving the life of a woman with an abortion a firing offence?

link

Clearly the moral and ethical response is to let the slut die. After all it was a catholic hospital and you can't force them to do an abortion.
Not just firing, excommunicating. By their standards they have condemned her to eternity in hell. Wow, that is some cool morals there.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2014, 01:01 PM   #251
Dessi
Species Traitor
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 3,615
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
What youdeem as human is memories, etc. You keep making that fundamental mistake. The people of Texas disagree with you. You cannot objectively prove that you are right anymore than I can. We are making philosophical arguments.

And we probably aren't even that far apart. It seems from the above that you would tend to draw a line around the 22-24 week area (correct me if I'm wrong). I could probably live with that if that's what my State decided. My overriding point isn't to try to convince anyone that my line is the correct line. I'm only arguing that there is no correct line and so it has to be an arbitrary line based on philosophical distinctions. And those can be different in different jurisdictions.
Another approach to the discussion, besides the pointless argument whether the word "human" includes fetuses or skin cells, is that laws against abortion are inconsistent with the view that people own their bodies, in so far that there is no other circumstance where one person is entitled to the blood, organs, and body of another person.

This is true despite kinship: no laws compels a parent to donate bone marrow, by virtue of being their parent.

And true despite medical need: no laws compel a parent to donate bone marrow, even if their child's life depended on it.

And true despite cause: no law compels a parent to donate their body parts to their child, even if that parents action or inaction (e.g. abuse, accident, genetic disorder) were the reason for their child needing some body part in the first place.

And true despite duration: no law compels a parent to donate a kidney to their child, even on the condition that they will get the kidney back in 9 months or so.

And true despite someone already using your body: if you woke up and discovered another person were hooked up to your body, using you as living dialysis machine, no law compels you to remain hooked together without your permission.

But laws against abortion, which grant unborn children (but not born children) a right to use their mothers blood and organs without her consent, do not make sense in a moral or legal framework where my bodily autonomy takes precedence over whatever life-saving-or-otherwise advantage another may gain by using it.

That's a problem and it needs to be addressed.

Pro-choicers address the problem by conceding that laws against abortion are not consistent with every other accepted norm concerning people using others blood and organs.

Pro-lifers fall back on the view that pregnancy be treated differently, which is special pleading. They might dispute this on the basis that removing a fetus is fatal and infringes on the fetuses bodily integrity; but pro-lifers do not carry that view over to born persons, as there is almost never a circumstance where they argue that mothers ought to be compelled to give up their blood and organs to their born children. We're right back to special pleading again.
__________________
>^.^<
Dessi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2014, 01:02 PM   #252
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Originally Posted by cosmicaug View Post
You are both diploidist scum! Just sayin'!
Diploids are #1... er.. #2.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2014, 01:09 PM   #253
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Originally Posted by Dessi View Post
Another approach to the discussion, besides the pointless argument whether the word "human" includes fetuses or skin cells, ...
I think your argument is compelling.

However, my argument is not pointless. Also, let's be clear, the term isn't "human", it's "human being". By definition a human being is one that has the form and function of, and I quote Encyclopedia Britannica, "a culture-bearing primate that is anatomically similar and related to the other great apes but is distinguished by a more highly developed brain and a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning."

By definition a fetus prior to viability is not a human being.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

Last edited by RandFan; 22nd October 2014 at 01:11 PM.
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2014, 03:51 PM   #254
Tatyana
Illuminator
 
Tatyana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,701
Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
I'm guessing legal.

ETA: I think the best way to deal with these Texas laws on abortion clinics is to donate a bunch of money to outfits like Planned Parenthood so that they can pay for the upgrades now required by the law.
It isn't always upgrades, but things like have admission privileges to local hospitals in case anything goes wrong.

Most of the local hospitals will not give admission privileges to the doctors who are performing abortions for numerous reasons, sometimes it is because the hospital has a religious link, sometimes it is because the doctor performing abortions is not a local doctor (a number of doctors will travel to abortion clinics from out of state), the hospital does not want to be associated with abortions............

This is basically what has shut down most of the abortion clinics in Texas, and it is coming to a state near you soon.

The irony is that abortion is a very safe procedure, especially as it is performed in 98% of the cases (before 12 weeks etc), and if there were any complications, an ambulance would be telephoned, the doctor would not need to admit the patient.

It is a legal maneuver to ban abortions.
Tatyana is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2014, 06:06 PM   #255
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 11,799
Originally Posted by Dessi View Post
Another approach to the discussion, besides the pointless argument whether the word "human" includes fetuses or skin cells, is that laws against abortion are inconsistent with the view that people own their bodies, in so far that there is no other circumstance where one person is entitled to the blood, organs, and body of another person.
<snip>
Pro-choicers address the problem by conceding that laws against abortion are not consistent with every other accepted norm concerning people using others blood and organs.
Pro-lifers fall back on the view that pregnancy be treated differently, which is special pleading.
This is a great argument: A woman's right to control her own body. I think this is the argument the Supreme Court essentially agreed to in Roe v. Wade. A woman's right to privacy, to decide to terminate her pregnancy if she desires, involves a fundamental right.
newyorkguy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2014, 06:42 PM   #256
Minoosh
Penultimate Amazing
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 12,465
Even if you think a zygote is a human being, I don't think that settles things. There are great gaping chasms of need out there right now. We don't need to manufacture more unwanted children. I'm glad I never had to make this choice and I hope that in Texas the "morning after pill" (which is not the abortion pill) remains available over the counter to anyone who asks.

If Texans want more children perhaps they could adopt some of the Central Americans who have shown up recently.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2014, 08:20 AM   #257
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 51,403
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
Not just firing, excommunicating. By their standards they have condemned her to eternity in hell. Wow, that is some cool morals there.
Look sometimes the only things for good people to do is watch people suffer and die despite their ability to save them. Explains why people think Mother Teresa was a good person.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2014, 07:30 AM   #258
xjx388
Moderator
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,062
Originally Posted by Dessi View Post
Another approach to the discussion, besides the pointless argument whether the word "human" includes fetuses or skin cells, is that laws against abortion are inconsistent with the view that people own their bodies, in so far that there is no other circumstance where one person is entitled to the blood, organs, and body of another person. <snip>
But a child is always entitled to the care of their parents. When the child is born, that care comes in the form of feeding, changing diapers, visiting the doctor, etc. When the child is unborn, that care comes in the form of dependence on the body of the mother.

Thus, we still have the problem of drawing a line. For you, effectively, the line of personhood is, "when the child is no longer physically attached to the mother." If we instead draw the line at viability, then we can simply argue that the mother owes the child a duty of care at that point.

Quote:
But laws against abortion, which grant unborn children (but not born children) a right to use their mothers blood and organs without her consent, do not make sense in a moral or legal framework where my bodily autonomy takes precedence over whatever life-saving-or-otherwise advantage another may gain by using it.
Unborn children require care that is different from born children. If you grant that a fetus can be considered a child, then you only need to recognize that a mother does have a duty to care for her child.
Quote:
That's a problem and it needs to be addressed.

Pro-choicers address the problem by conceding that laws against abortion are not consistent with every other accepted norm concerning people using others blood and organs.

Pro-lifers fall back on the view that pregnancy be treated differently, which is special pleading.
It's only special pleading if such pleading can't be justified. You can't just say, "God!" But given that unborn children require a different kind of care than born children, we have plenty of precedent for parents having a duty of care.

Consider the case of men. We jail men -take away all their rights, freedoms and control of their body- for not paying child support. They have absolutely no choice in the matter. If they engage in sex with a woman, there is always the possibility that they will be faced with a legal and financial burden they don't want. We don't give men the option of aborting this duty at any point in the pregnancy. Thus, I don't find arguments that women should get a special right to terminate a parental duty very compelling. We do control the bodies of men who don't meet this unwanted duty, thus, imposing a lesser degree of control on the woman's body (allowing the fetus to grow) seems appropriate.
Quote:
They might dispute this on the basis that removing a fetus is fatal and infringes on the fetuses bodily integrity; but pro-lifers do not carry that view over to born persons, as there is almost never a circumstance where they argue that mothers ought to be compelled to give up their blood and organs to their born children. We're right back to special pleading again.
First of all, let's be clear: the mother is not actually giving up her blood and organs. The fetus has their own. The baby is attached to the mother by the placenta where nutrients and oxygen are supplied from the mother's uterus. If a situation arose where the pregnancy was a threat to the mother's body, then abortion would be legal and medically appropriate.

Finally, I think that the parental duty to provide care supersedes the mother's right to control of her body. This is as true after the baby is born as it is before; the only difference is the type of care required to meet that duty.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2014, 09:45 AM   #259
Dessi
Species Traitor
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 3,615
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
But a child is always entitled to the care of their parents. When the child is born, that care comes in the form of feeding, changing diapers, visiting the doctor, etc. When the child is unborn, that care comes in the form of dependence on the body of the mother.

Thus, we still have the problem of drawing a line. For you, effectively, the line of personhood is, "when the child is no longer physically attached to the mother." If we instead draw the line at viability, then we can simply argue that the mother owes the child a duty of care at that point.
Looks like you're rebutting an argument I didn't make. You changed my argument from the serious problem of principles regarding bodily autonomy being inconsistent with pro-life philosophy, to something about line-drawing. I'm not going to address arguments against views I did not state nor hold in the first place.

Quote:
Unborn children require care that is different from born children. If you grant that a fetus can be considered a child, then you only need to recognize that a mother does have a duty to care for her child.
It's only special pleading if such pleading can't be justified. You can't just say, "God!" But given that unborn children require a different kind of care than born children, we have plenty of precedent for parents having a duty of care.
You need a strong argument explaining how a duty to care logically implies that strangers can use your blood and organs without your permission.

Quote:
Consider the case of men. We jail men -take away all their rights, freedoms and control of their body- for not paying child support. They have absolutely no choice in the matter. If they engage in sex with a woman, there is always the possibility that they will be faced with a legal and financial burden they don't want. We don't give men the option of aborting this duty at any point in the pregnancy. Thus, I don't find arguments that women should get a special right to terminate a parental duty very compelling. We do control the bodies of men who don't meet this unwanted duty, thus, imposing a lesser degree of control on the woman's body (allowing the fetus to grow) seems appropriate.
A duty to care for one's child is one possible basis for demanding child support, but the profound unfairness of placing an enormous burden on one parent to meet all the needs of their child may be another reason for child support. Neither reason appears to sufficiently connect the statement "people have a duty to care for their children" to "one person's medical needs takes precedence over another person's bodily autonomy", as family courts do not and cannot legally compel fathers to donate kidneys and bone marrow to their children regardless of medical need. This only makes sense in an ethical framework where my bodily autonomy takes precedence over whatever life-saving advantage another might gain from my blood and organs.

cosmicaug's post below summarizes this point more succinctly.

Quote:
First of all, let's be clear: the mother is not actually giving up her blood and organs. The fetus has their own. The baby is attached to the mother by the placenta where nutrients and oxygen are supplied from the mother's uterus. Finally, I think that the parental duty to provide care supersedes the mother's right to control of her body.
Errm, yes, the mother is giving up her organs to a person which is literally attached to her placenta, her blood supply, her cardiovascular system, who resides in her body and cannot removed before birth without surgery.

And that's a problem. Pro-lifers do not accept the implications of a view which says another person's medical need for blood and organs supercedes the consensual use your blood and organs. Not even the most ardent pro-lifer would argue that a parent be legally compelled to donate organs and bone marrow to their born children -- even though that scenario is a logical consequence of their view, it's the exact same demand they make regarding unborn children.

Pro-lifers cannot avoid that consequence without completely contradicting their philosophy which says that their is not meaningful moral difference between born and unborn children, only their location in relation to their mother. If an unborn child's medical needs allows it to use it's mother's blood and organs without mother's permission, then that principle logically carries over to born child whose medical needs allow it to use mother's blood and organs without her permission. Ergo, a moral duty forcing mothers to give up their organs, blood, and bone marrow to meet a born child's medical needs.

If pro-lifers accept this dystopian consequence, it would be consistent within their own ethical framework.

But they often do not accept that consequence. They behave as if a mother's duty to give up their blood and organs to meet their child's medical needs is logically dependent on the location of the fetus. So moral consideration of a child's right-to-life and right to life-saving blood and organs is conditionally dependent on their location relative to their mother, making birth a change in location and moral consideration.

I am honestly trying to see how pro-life principles tie together into a coherent ethic, but it's just a frustrating experience. Their principles neatly explain why a stranger can make claims on another person's blood and organs without their permission, but do not address the moral rats nest of implications that follow.
__________________
>^.^<

Last edited by Dessi; 24th October 2014 at 10:25 AM.
Dessi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2014, 09:47 AM   #260
cosmicaug
Graduate Poster
 
cosmicaug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,497
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Unborn children require care that is different from born children. If you grant that a fetus can be considered a child, then you only need to recognize that a mother does have a duty to care for her child.
This does not affect the original argument made in any way. They specifically mentioned bone marrow donation. In the case of of bone marrow donation being needed, the required care is a bone marrow donation. This (much less a kidney) cannot legally compelled.

So apparently there are duties which might be compelled and duties (involving bodily integrity) which cannot be compelled (except, according to you, when the fetus has not been born --a period during which the duty to be an incubator supersedes all else).

As for pregnancy being a threat to the woman's body, it's a matter of degree. Despite propaganda to the contrary, usually, when adequate medical care is involved, abortion is the safer choice for the woman.
__________________
--
August Pamplona
cosmicaug is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2014, 09:55 AM   #261
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 23,522
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
But a child is always entitled to the care of their parents.
This is not true in the United States, and certainly not in Texas.

A parent may leave the hospital without their child, or even leave their child at a drop off point such as a fire station, and the child has no recourse against the parent.

These laws make sense and have positive practical implications. The same is true for early term abortions.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2014, 10:10 AM   #262
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 11,799
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
<snip>
A parent may leave the hospital without their child, or even leave their child at a drop off point such as a fire station, and the child has no recourse against the parent. <snip>
I was in Dallas several years ago not long after the Texas law permitting women to leave a child at a firehouse -- no questions asked -- was passed. I was pleasantly surprised at the sensitivity local officials exhibited in terms of understanding the desperation that some young mothers obviously feel.

In fact while I was in Big D -- either on that trip or another -- a young woman was apprehended after she had murdered her infant child. It was a sad case. The woman was a low-wage earner who could barely support herself. The father, her boyfriend, ended their relationship as soon as he found out she was pregnant. When Dallas police took her for the 'perp walk' the woman seemed overwhelmed and distraught. Despite killing her infant it was very hard not to feel compassion for this woman.
newyorkguy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2014, 01:27 PM   #263
xjx388
Moderator
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,062
Originally Posted by Dessi View Post
Looks like you're rebutting an argument I didn't make. You changed my argument from the serious problem of principles regarding bodily autonomy being inconsistent with pro-life philosophy, to something something about line-drawing. I'm not going to address arguments against views I did not state nor hold in the first place.
The view is implicit in your argument. If a fetus is recognized as a person at some point in the pregnancy before birth, then the mother owes a duty of care to that child at that point -which means she can't take an action that would harm it. During pregnancy, due to the natural, unalterable relationship between the mother's body and the child, the mother's duty to care means that she must allow the child to develop in the womb. IOW, the fetus' right to live usurps the woman's right to control her body. That view is not in conflict with Roe or any other ruling I'm aware of.
Quote:
You need a strong argument explaining how a duty to care logically implies that strangers can use your blood and organs without your permission.
It doesn't. We don't have a duty to care for strangers. I argue that a parent has a duty to care for their child.

Quote:
Child support is based on the view that raising a child is an enormous burden which would be unfair to place on one parent,
I would say it's based on the view that the duty of a parent supersedes the parent's own self-interests. A parent cannot simply walk away and abdicate their responsibilities. They can't kill their kid because they don't want them anymore.

Quote:
but it's not clear that this view actually implies that someone may use your blood and organs without your permission as no family court as ever ordered fathers to donate kidneys and lungs for the sake of saving their children's lives.
The mother isn't donating kidneys and lungs or even blood, therefore the analogy is not that strong.

Quote:
Errm, yes, the mother is giving up her organs to a person which is literally attached to her placenta, her blood supply, her cardiovascular system, residing in their body, and cannot be separated before birth without surgery.
Again, she isn't giving up her organs in any sense of the word. Her organs remain intact and fully functioning for her needs. The placenta is not exclusively the woman's organ; it's more of a shared organ with most of it arising from the fetal tissue. Thus, it could be argued that the woman doesn't have the right to remove the organ the fetus needs to survive. Again it all comes down to personhood.

Quote:
And that's a problem. Pro-lifers do not accept the implications of a view which says another person's medical need for blood and organs supercedes the consensual use your blood and organs.
I would say that's true for strangers but not for one's own children. If a parent was a match for one of their children, I would expect the parent to happily donate whatever the kid needed. A bit of Googling did not turn up any cases where a parent refused to do so. Thus, it could be that a law is not necessary to compel donation from parents.
Quote:
Not even the most ardent pro-lifer would never argue that a parent be restrained and forced to donate bone marrow to their children without the parent's consent -- even though that scenario is a logical consequence of their view.
I have not seen that come up before. We don't know what a pro-lifer would think about such a scenario. For my part, I would like to see a parent who refused to donate an organ prosecuted for failing in their duty to care, unless such donation was medically inadvisable. I can't force them to donate, but I can certainly punish them for taking an action that caused harm to their kid.

Quote:
Pro-lifers cannot avoid that consequence without completely contradicting their philosophy which says that the only difference between a born and unborn child is their location in relation to their mother, which they argue is not a morally meaningful distinction. If an unborn child's medical needs allows it to use it's mother's blood and organs without mother's permission, then that principle logically carries over to born child whose medical needs allow it to use mother's blood and organs without her permission. Erg,: a moral duty forcing mothers to give up their organs, blood, and bone marrow to meet a born child's medical needs.
I think such a moral duty does exist even if there isn't a legal duty. A parent has a duty to care for their child and not take actions which will harm them. This starts in the womb and extends until the child reaches adulthood. I would even say that a parent has a duty even through adulthood. Again, I don't see laws being crafted to enforce this duty, but it is certainly a moral duty, IMO.

Quote:
If pro-lifers accept this dystopian consequence, it would be consistent within their own ethical framework.
I don't find it dystopian. I cannot imagine a parent who would not willingly and happily donate whatever the kid needed to survive. I would give up my life to allow my kid to live longer.

Quote:
But they often do not accept that consequence. They behave as if a mother's duty to give up their blood and organs to meet their child's medical needs is logically dependent on the location of the fetus. So moral consideration of a child's right-to-life and right to life-saving blood and organs is conditionally dependent on their location relative to their mother. If birth is a morally irrelevant change in location between born and unborn children, how did we end up with principles that paradoxically imply birth is change in location and moral consideration?
I don't think it has to do with location. It has to do with the personhood of the fetus. If the fetus is not a person until they are born, then there would not exist any duty to care for the fetus. I believe the fetus is a person at least beginning with viability. Thus, the mother has the duty.

Quote:
I am honestly trying to see how pro-life principles tie together into a coherent ethic, but it's just a frustrating experience. Their principles neatly explain why a stranger can make claims on another person's blood and organs without their permission, but do not address the moral rats nest of implications that follow.
I think you need to address the actual arguments of pro-lifers and not the straw men you are creating. I think you would find more of them do indeed put a heavy moral burden on parents when it comes to the care of their kids. I know I do.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2014, 01:37 PM   #264
xjx388
Moderator
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,062
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
This is not true in the United States, and certainly not in Texas.

A parent may leave the hospital without their child, or even leave their child at a drop off point such as a fire station, and the child has no recourse against the parent.

These laws make sense and have positive practical implications. The same is true for early term abortions.
That's a very limited law intended to stop infanticide. You can't drop off your troubled teen, for example, as much as we might want to. In Texas, either parent can do this during the first 60 days. They can't harm the child in any way. Parents can indeed walk away under these limited circumstances but the intent of the law is to protect the life of the child. I'd like to see the laws amended so that the other parent has an opportunity to claim custody.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2014, 01:43 PM   #265
xjx388
Moderator
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,062
Originally Posted by cosmicaug View Post
This does not affect the original argument made in any way. They specifically mentioned bone marrow donation. In the case of of bone marrow donation being needed, the required care is a bone marrow donation. This (much less a kidney) cannot legally compelled.
True. But I can't come up with a single case where a compatible parent refused to donate whatever their kid needed. We don't need a law for a nonexistent problem.

Quote:
So apparently there are duties which might be compelled and duties (involving bodily integrity) which cannot be compelled (except, according to you, when the fetus has not been born --a period during which the duty to be an incubator supersedes all else).
I think that the fetal/mother relationship is a natural one which requires the use of the mother's body as an incubator, to use your terms. If you recognize, as SCOTUS did, that the State does have an interest in protecting the fetus at some point in the pregnancy then you implicitly accept that the mother's rights must be superseded at some point.

Quote:
As for pregnancy being a threat to the woman's body, it's a matter of degree. Despite propaganda to the contrary, usually, when adequate medical care is involved, abortion is the safer choice for the woman.
Well sure. And in the early parts of gestation, I have no issue if someone wants to get an abortion. But once the line is crossed, then I believe we have to protect the fetus even if it is riskier.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2014, 02:02 PM   #266
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 52,695
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
If SCOTUS had UPHELD Texas' new abortion law I might agree with you. But a federal court invalidated it and SCOTUS upheld the lower court.

For pages you've been insisting "the community" should have the right to enforce its standards. Obviously if it's community standards vs. Constitutional rights the latter is going to prevail. You can argue all you like. The irony here is, while this thread has been going on the law you have been defending was overturned by a federal court. It's a moot point.

Have a great day!
Funny how some people yell about how Obama and the Evil Democrats are trying to take away their individual liberties,but it is a Right Wing group who is advocating infringing liberties, they either support it or make excuses for it.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2014, 02:39 PM   #267
cosmicaug
Graduate Poster
 
cosmicaug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,497
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
I think that the fetal/mother relationship is a natural one which requires the use of the mother's body as an incubator, to use your terms. If you recognize, as SCOTUS did, that the State does have an interest in protecting the fetus at some point in the pregnancy then you implicitly accept that the mother's rights must be superseded at some point.
Fixed that for you as I am sure you did not intend to give the appearance of introducing an appeal to nature into your argument.
__________________
--
August Pamplona
cosmicaug is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2014, 03:50 PM   #268
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
That's a very limited law intended to stop infanticide. You can't drop off your troubled teen, for example, as much as we might want to. In Texas, either parent can do this during the first 60 days. They can't harm the child in any way. Parents can indeed walk away under these limited circumstances but the intent of the law is to protect the life of the child. I'd like to see the laws amended so that the other parent has an opportunity to claim custody.
A.) The fact falsifies your claim about entitlement duty. B.) A parent who is destitute (or in some other situations) can turn his or her children over to care of the state or other relatives. C.) A child can sue for emancipation. D.) A pregnant woman has a duty to care for her fetus unless she seeks an abortion.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2014, 03:55 PM   #269
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 23,522
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
That's a very limited law intended to stop infanticide. You can't drop off your troubled teen, for example, as much as we might want to. In Texas, either parent can do this during the first 60 days. They can't harm the child in any way. Parents can indeed walk away under these limited circumstances but the intent of the law is to protect the life of the child. I'd like to see the laws amended so that the other parent has an opportunity to claim custody.
Then we agree that a child is not always entitled to the care of their parents.

ETA: I should have just let RandFan take this one. Carry on.

Last edited by Dr. Keith; 24th October 2014 at 03:56 PM.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2014, 04:53 PM   #270
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,785
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Funny how some people yell about how Obama and the Evil Democrats are trying to take away their individual liberties,but it is a Right Wing group who is advocating infringing liberties, they either support it or make excuses for it.
It's a government small enough to govern the inside of a vagina.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2014, 05:04 PM   #271
xjx388
Moderator
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,062
Originally Posted by cosmicaug View Post
Fixed that for you as I am sure you did not intend to give the appearance of introducing an appeal to nature into your argument.
It was probably a bad way to phrase it. I mean only that a fetus is not something that was artificially and forcibly attached to the mother by some third party*. It grows in her uterus through mostly-well-understood biological processes as a result of sexual intercourse. I'm not assigning a value judgement to its "naturalness." Cancer is natural, after all.





*Given that raped women who get pregnant can get 1)Emergency contraception and 2) a legal abortion within the constraints of the law, I won't get into those nuances.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2014, 05:06 PM   #272
xjx388
Moderator
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,062
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Funny how some people yell about how Obama and the Evil Democrats are trying to take away their individual liberties,but it is a Right Wing group who is advocating infringing liberties, they either support it or make excuses for it.
We can infringe liberties when it results in harm of another. That is a valid function of the government.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2014, 05:15 PM   #273
xjx388
Moderator
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,062
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
A.) The fact falsifies your claim about entitlement duty. B.) A parent who is destitute (or in some other situations) can turn his or her children over to care of the state or other relatives. C.) A child can sue for emancipation. D.) A pregnant woman has a duty to care for her fetus unless she seeks an abortion.
Parents still have a duty to care for their children. The laws are specific that the child cannot be harmed at the time of drop off. Thus, while the child is in the custody of the parent, the parent has a duty to care for the child. The drop off is to prevent harm to the child. In that case it is no different than if the mother had decided to give the baby up for adoption.

Parents can go through the process of giving their children up for adoption or appointing someone else the legal guardian. A kid can sue for emancipation. But until that occurs legally, the parent still has a duty to care. We have laws against straight up child abandonment.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2014, 05:18 PM   #274
Tatyana
Illuminator
 
Tatyana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,701
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
We can infringe liberties when it results in harm of another. That is a valid function of the government.
And a foetus can harm a woman.

In fact, it all too often does, even with exceptional pre-natal care when a woman really wants to have a child, which is why abortion should be legal and available.

That does not even take into consideration all of the sacrifices a woman has to make in order to raise a child to adulthood.

It is folly to force a woman to have a child that she doesn't want. Seriously, what benefit is this going to be to society?

What I find amazing is that Margaret Atwood's 'The Handmaiden's Tale' is so very close to being prophetic about America right now, it would be amusing if her story was not so terrifying.
Tatyana is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2014, 05:55 PM   #275
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Parents still have a duty to care for their children.
Which is irrelevant to a fetus.

Quote:
The laws are specific that the child cannot be harmed at the time of drop off. Thus, while the child is in the custody of the parent, the parent has a duty to care for the child. The drop off is to prevent harm to the child. In that case it is no different than if the mother had decided to give the baby up for adoption.

Parents can go through the process of giving their children up for adoption or appointing someone else the legal guardian. A kid can sue for emancipation. But until that occurs legally, the parent still has a duty to care. We have laws against straight up child abandonment.
Until and unless a woman seeks an abortion she has a responsibility to care for her fetus. Which is not a child.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2014, 07:10 PM   #276
theprestige
Suspended
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 53,565
Originally Posted by Tatyana View Post
And a foetus can harm a woman. In fact, it all too often does, even with exceptional pre-natal care when a woman really wants to have a child, which is why abortion should be legal and available.
Abortion out of medical necessity is already legal and widely accepted. Disputing this point is a red herring.

If this was the actual point in question, it would have been settled long ago. The dissenters would have been a tiny, marginalized minority for over a generation by now.

Last edited by theprestige; 24th October 2014 at 07:12 PM.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2014, 08:23 PM   #277
xjx388
Moderator
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,062
Originally Posted by Tatyana View Post
And a foetus can harm a woman.

In fact, it all too often does, even with exceptional pre-natal care when a woman really wants to have a child, which is why abortion should be legal and available.
Until the fetus reaches viability or until it's born?

I understand that pregnancy carries risk, but I wouldn't characterize it as the fetus causing harm to the woman. It's not like the fetus is actively seeking to harm the woman. Whatever risks exist in pregnancy are almost always due to pre-existing problems in the woman. Besides, abortions for medical necessity are not controversial.

Quote:
That does not even take into consideration all of the sacrifices a woman has to make in order to raise a child to adulthood.
She can give the baby up for adoption. If she wants the kid, there is no issue with sacrifice.

Quote:
It is folly to force a woman to have a child that she doesn't want. Seriously, what benefit is this going to be to society?
The same benefit we have in protecting the life of anyone. Why don't we just kill off all the leeches on society? Why do we try to ensure that everyone has access to food, healthcare, etc?

I know it's somehow controversial to say this, but if she didn't want a child, she should have made choices that didn't result in having a child. Birth control, abstention and emergency contraceptives are the options in that case. Once she creates a life, she still has options. She can abort it with abortifacents or surgical procedures in the first trimester in every state. Once the line of viability is crossed, she can then give the baby up for adoption. What she can't do is kill her child just because she doesn't want it.

Quote:
What I find amazing is that Margaret Atwood's 'The Handmaiden's Tale' is so very close to being prophetic about America right now, it would be amusing if her story was not so terrifying.
That's just a bit of an exaggeration there . . .
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2014, 08:42 PM   #278
xjx388
Moderator
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,062
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
Which is irrelevant to a fetus.
I fear we are going in circles, but: it's relevant if we grant that the fetus deserves protection at some point.
Quote:
Until and unless a woman seeks an abortion she has a responsibility to care for her fetus. Which is not a child.
Let's try, "Until and unless a woman kills the infant, she has a responsibility to care for the infant. Which is not a child." That construction clearly doesn't work because the infant is definitely a person and deserves protection from the mother. At what point does the fetus deserve protection?
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2014, 11:03 PM   #279
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
I fear we are going in circles, but: it's relevant if we grant that the fetus deserves protection at some point.
When the fetus is capable of A) surviving on its own. B. the ability to suffer and feel pain.

Quote:
Let's try, "Until and unless a woman kills the infant, she has a responsibility to care for the infant. Which is not a child."
Only if you think sperm and ovum "deserve protection".

Quote:
That construction clearly doesn't work because the infant is definitely a person and deserves protection from the mother. At what point does the fetus deserve protection?
A person who has memories, plans for the future and is capable of suffering is the person who most deserves protection. A mass of tissue that doesn't even know that it exists, doesn't have plans for the future and is not capable of suffering doesn't "deserve" anything.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th October 2014, 10:06 AM   #280
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,785
Originally Posted by Tatyana View Post
And a foetus can harm a woman.

In fact, it all too often does, even with exceptional pre-natal care when a woman really wants to have a child, which is why abortion should be legal and available.

That does not even take into consideration all of the sacrifices a woman has to make in order to raise a child to adulthood.

It is folly to force a woman to have a child that she doesn't want. Seriously, what benefit is this going to be to society?

What I find amazing is that Margaret Atwood's 'The Handmaiden's Tale' is so very close to being prophetic about America right now, it would be amusing if her story was not so terrifying.
You are just a woman, so your opinion doesn't matter. It's the religious oppressors community that should have a say about what happens with your vagina. If you have sex, you should pay the consequence and pregnancy is a very good punishment for having sex. Women should not have sex for fun.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:33 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.