Abortion question

[Crown_of_Stars]

BTW - women are not created for men. They are independent of man’s situation and get to choose whether or not to help this moron grow up. @your tag line.

Eve was the first woman created. She came after the man, and she wascreated for man. The man-woman relationship was designed to be beautiful, natural, and without competition. The woman was designed to be the man’s other half, his helper, she was designed to go alongside of him. Think of a beautiful man and a beautiful woman alone together, the only two creatures on earth, except for every kind of beautiful animal. Think of a man and a woman alone together, in a garden of valleys and streams, running, holding hands, laughing, naked and free, deer sprinting about, birds trilling, streams flowing. Think of what the world was long, long ago, when all was silent, and a woman and man had only each other. Long ago, the world was silent and beautiful.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Ending a pregnancy, late term, by the mother’s choice and where the fetus get’s to survive is just called a C-Section.

Ending a pregnancy, early term, by the mother’s choice, where the fetus would die naturally as a result but is facilitated to die before naturally dying is an abortion. It’s the same idea of someone choosing not to donate bone marrow to save someone’s life. They never lost the ability to choose how and when their body will be used to save someone else’s life. Or do you see this differently?

It’s very different because bone marrow is not a separate person. If you put someone in a position where they are dependent upon your action, or inaction, to survive, you have a duty to that person to act reasonably, and in a manner that will not cause harm. Consider this analogy: You grab a person and hold them over the edge of a cliff. If you let go of them, they will fall to the bottom and be killed. You do not have the right to let go of them. I see a pregnancy as more analogous to this scenario than to the decision to retain or give up a product that your body generates on its own, without your conscious decision-making.

Russell_SA:

The drunk guy that drives home and plows over by-standers understood the risks he was taking on for that choice to drive, but he never has to give up any of his bodily autonomy to save the lives of the people he hit. He can go to jail for man slaughter, but the government can not force the guy to give up his bodily rights as compensation, even if his organs, blood, etc, would save the lives of his victims.

What about the case of the woman who hit a pedestrian who went through her windshield, but was not immediately killed. She drove home and parked in the garage where the man died of his injuries. She owed the man a duty to use her own body and free will to take the reasonable and necessary actions required to avoid the man’s death. I believe that the law should compel a mother to do the same for her unborn child… what is reasonable and necessary under the circumstances.
Russel_SA:

The location of the victim is irrelevant once a person is born, but is not irrelevant when they are preborn. That is granting special rights to one group of people and not to others.

My position is consistent whether a child is inside or outside of the womb. It is your position that is inconsistent. You assert that a child’s right to life must yield to lesser concerns based because of her location in her mother’s womb. To me, that seems rather result-oriented in its logic.

Russell_SA:

Such as the child, that is born, is in a different location and therefore the parents are not legally required to use their body to save the life of their child, but the location of the fetus forces the parents to give up their bodily autonomy to save the life of their child. This stinks of special privilege for men. Where the men never have to loose the rights over their bodies to save the life of their child, but women do during pregnancy. To make it fair, all parents should have to give up their bodily rights for the term of the child’s care, regardless of born or unborn, till the child is an independent adult.

You are operating from the assumption that bodily integrity should be sacrosanct at all times, but the law frequently tells us what we can and cannot do with our own bodies. (Laws prevent physicians from mutilating or killing even where we consent to such procedures.) Further, where is there special privilege to men. If a man were to become pregnant (who knows where we may be 5-10-20 years from now), the same law should apply. The law should require what is reasonable and necessary under the circumstances. That law on its face requires the same of all people, although in practice it would prevent a woman from terminating a safe and healthy pregnancy. So, yes, I still respectfully disagree with the way you have posed the argument.

Peace,
Robert

 

[YADA]

So you would be fine with state mandated control over how your body is used to save the life of someone else? There is no more volunteering to donate your organs after you die, but it is mandatory by the state that they harvest your body to save someone else. That if you cause an accident where your body could save the life of the victims, you have to give up your body to save theirs as long as you don’t die from the procedure? So if your father’s drunk driving causes someone he hit to require a kidney transplant, then he would be state mandated to give up his kidney to save the victim’s life? That is the legal equivalent of what you are asking women to do for the pre-born, so why do the post-born loose this? This is the implication you are implying it seems and it stinks of special privilege for men not to be held medically responsible to save the life of their child the way women are. To make it more ethically fair, all parents should have to give up their bodily autonomy to save the life of their child regardless of pre- or post-born. The choice to donate a liver, kidney, blood, marrow, etc is removed from the parent and it becomes a state mandated requirement. Or do you think this conclusion is out of line from what you presented?

You failed to address my point - and reintroduced your ridiculous analogy

Are you okay with the mother killing a child 2 weeks post birth because its just too demanding upon her bodily autonomy - breast feeding lack of sleep … the mother has decided that she just is not willing to sacrifice her autonomy to the child that demands feeding every 2 hours - day and night - she wants her breasts and sleep time back… poops and pees needing her to clean and change and launder /and or spend copious amounts of money on wipes and diapers … this mother wants to be able to go out with friends, enjoy a her life without dragging the child along and or getting a baby sitter … This chid has taken over her life and bodily autonomy … she should [by your logic] be able to rid herself of its control of her life

 

[Vonsalza]

I think your point about breastfeeding is very interesting and highly pertinent to the discussion about bodily autonomy.