Abortion question

[minkymurph]

Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. Just as driving a car is not consent to give up your body to sustain the passenger’s lives if you get in an accident. That seems like what the people in the conversation were going into as well in the discussion.

Consent to sex may not be consent to pregnancy Russel but if you voluntarily engage in unprotected sex common sense dictates you run the risk of pregnancy, and the law
does impose and acceptance of risk on individuals in various legal disciplines - particularly where the outcome is foreseeable.

 

[Russell_SA]

Consent is a nebulous thing. Unless she was raped, she consented to place the constituents of life in close proximity. We know what makes babies.

So the father driving the car that places his child in danger when in an accident would fall under this issue to because if the father woke up in the hospital and the hospital had connected him to his child to sustain the life of his child, he could sue the hospital for medical assault and be disconnected from his child. So this illustrates that the rights of the individual’s body supersedes the right to life of the people involved in the event, even if they are bystanders or the victims.

 

[Russell_SA]

Consent to sex may not be consent to pregnancy Russel but if you voluntarily engage in unprotected sex common sense dictates you run the risk of pregnancy, and the law
does impose and acceptance of risk on individuals in various legal disciplines - particularly where the outcome is foreseeable.

Shifting to the degree of the act to cause the outcome is a separate conversation. What degree of safety did the death row inmate take to prevent their victims from not having that outcome? That’s a separate issue than the discussion of now that the event has occurred, do we force the death row inmate to give up their bodily autonomy to save the life of their victim? No we don’t because that person still has the right to give or remove consent for how their body is to be used for that victim. That is what the conversation focused on, there were attempts to go into the degree of risk but it was still all about consent of the individual over the person’s right to life.

 

[Russell_SA]

THAT IS RIDICULOUS, immature:[MEISM] self-logic

It IS GOD who makes pregnancy possible. NOT every act of sexual intercourse results in a pregnancy for GODS DESIGN reasons. Therefore GOD is the giver [maker] of ALL life and GOD alone reserves the right to make that call… AMEN

If said atheist dent God; that too is logically provable.

YOUR time could be much better spent IMO, than listening to this malarkey

GBY.
3

appeals to the supernatural do not have weight in the legal system. So this was not brought up in the conversation because just as someone’s claim to god for the result is another culture’s claim to a lucky rabbit’s foot. Both are immaterial to the case as I understand mythical appeals go so far in courts.

 

[Vonsalza]

So the father driving the car that places his child in danger when in an accident would fall under this issue to because if the father woke up in the hospital and the hospital had connected him to his child to sustain the life of his child…

Is there any place where this has actually occurred beyond the mind of someone trying to justify abortion? Like, in reality?

As a dad, if being connected for 9 months to my kids (or, really, anyone else’s kid) gave them a shot at surviving some terrible thing, I’d do it in a heartbeat.

But this is just a bizarre fantasy where the author is trying to equate female pregnancy to men. And then presumes the men would then surely sue because of it. :ehh:

 

[Russell_SA]

Is there any place where this has actually occurred beyond the mind of someone trying to justify abortion? Like, in reality?

As a dad, if being connected for 9 months to my kids (or, really, anyone else’s kid) gave them a shot at surviving some terrible thing, I’d do it in a heartbeat.

But this is just a bizarre fantasy where the author is trying to equate female pregnancy to men. And then presumes the men would then surely sue because of it. :ehh:

It’s an illustration where the applied discussion about legal issues are used to point out where there appears to be a double standard. A certain group of people, fetuses, have a special right that no one else has. That’s the point of the discussion I was listening to and about where both sides see the issue. No hospital would hook up the father that way without a medical proxy or living will that approved that medical procedure because it would be illegal for the hospital to do that. That is the point of the philosophical experiment. To point that post-birth, right to life is not as important as bodily autonomy, but pre-birth, right to life supersedes bodily autonomy. That’s why this issue is still an issue because that problem has not been addressed legally yet. Rights to people, regardless of developmental stage need to be equally applied to all of us seems to be the argument. Or do you see it differently in our system?

 

[Vonsalza]

It’s an illustration where the applied discussion about legal issues are used to point out where there appears to be a double standard. A certain group of people, fetuses, have a special right that no one else has. That’s the point of the discussion I was listening to and about where both sides see the issue.

In the west, abortion is legal pretty much everywhere. I do wish you were right about the unborn having “special rights”.

No hospital would hook up the father that way without a medical proxy or living will that approved that medical procedure because it would be illegal for the hospital to do that. That is the point of the philosophical experiment.

So because men and women are (functionally) biologically unequal, women should have the right to abort whenever they choose? I don’t see the valid syllogism there. Could you construct it for me?

To point that post-birth, right to life is not as important as bodily autonomy, but pre-birth, right to life supersedes bodily autonomy.

I think that statement lacks soundness. It seems more like an opinion.

But in counter to the opinion, we certainly have to be born in order to enjoy our limited bodily autonomy, don’t we?

That’s why this issue is still an issue because that problem has not been addressed legally yet.

Roe v. Wade pretty well did it in the US.

Rights to people, regardless of developmental stage…

Again, the unborn cannot enjoy “bodily autonomy” unless they are born. For the fetus, those two rights are one in the same.

 

[Russell_SA]

So because men and women are (functionally) biologically unequal, women should have the right to abort whenever they choose? I don’t see the valid syllogism there. Could you construct it for me?

The example of the post-born having rights over their body does not supersede the rights of another individual’s right to life, but for the pre-born, this is reversed when we apply these rules in our society. That is the issue they were discussing. It wasn’t a male female thing. The mom could be driving the car in the thought experiment as much as the dad or anyone driving that is in no relation to the passengers. That’s all they were talking about. The pre-born have a special right to their life over the bodily rights of the mother, but post-born, the rule reverses in application. I hope that addressed your question here. If not, I’ll need more feed back to see what you want here.

But in counter to the opinion, we certainly have to be born in order to enjoy our limited bodily autonomy, don’t we?

Not necessarily, people in a coma for instance or people in locked-in syndrome, all these people have no way of voicing their medical wishes without a medical proxy or a living will. But even that being they case, they can not force another human to give up their bodily rights to save those people once the person is born. Preborn they have these rights though. It’s special privilege to a group of people that the rest of the people do not get.

Again, the unborn cannot enjoy “bodily autonomy” unless they are born. For the fetus, those two rights are one in the same.

Neither can anyone who can not communicate their medical wishes. Such as coma patients, locked-in syndrome, etc. They need a medical proxy or living will. But even with those, they can not ask another person to give up their bodily rights to save that person’s life without consent given first. Or is that not the case?

 

[Stephen168]

That is the point of the philosophical experiment.

You seem to be avoiding good challenges to your “philosophical experiment.”

Are we really going to say that if you choose to engage in an activity that you know makes babies, you have absolutely no responsibility towards the child you created?
Russell_SA;14557318:

The father putting his child in the car and then getting in an accident was the case presented as a similar issue.

Your counter still isn’t very good as cars aren’t designed to have accidents.Similarly, sex isn’t “designed” to be non-procreative. Quite the opposite.

…

Let me give you a thought experiment that (I think) originated with Josh Brahm and his colleagues…

A mother with a three-week old baby wakes up one morning to find herself in the bedroom of a log cabin. The cabin is completely snowed in, and she’s unable to leave. In the next room, she discovers a note from the people who have kidnapped her:

[/QUOTE]

 

[Russell_SA]

1. Parents (mother and father) are required to care for their child; they do not volunteer. They are held responsible because they engaged in a reproductive act which resulted in reproduction. We hold drunk drivers responsible for their actions even though they did not intend for an accident to happen.

Legally we can not force drunk or any level of ability of drivers to give up their bodily autonomy to care for their victims of the accident. Even the deceased are not forced to give up their organs to donation. It all has to be given through consent first, even if you did create the victim of the event.

1. The baby does have a right to its mother’s body because: 1) it is the natural way we all have developed, 2) only the mother can provide the womb 3) is a natural obligation (just food and shelter) and not an extraordinary obligation.

Why would this change after they are born? The argument put forth was this was special rules for a specific group of people that no one else is held to. So, once born, the child is allowed to die if the parents decide not to allow their bodies to save their child’s life, but if the child is not born, the mother can have no say in her consent for the use of her body. That’s the point of the discussion that they were having.

1. Abortion is killing not just withholding care, or taking control of her body for 9 months.

So, in the car accident event, where the hospital connected the driver to the passenger to keep the passenger alive, the driver would be killing the passenger if they decided to not allow their body to keep that person alive too?

1. Pregnancy is not as horrendous as being used by the violinists body.

The level of violation is not in question. Such as your right to swing your arm at my face stops before it hits my face, not how hard you hit my face.

And the argument has also been challenged by the “de facto guardian argument” which includes the story of the “cabin in a blizzard” presented in post #5. I noticed you skipped right past the story without comment.

Just haven’t gotten to that yet, keep getting pulled away here at work.

 

[Russell_SA]

You seem to be avoiding good challenges to your “philosophical experiment.”

shifting the point of the discussion. I’m just trying to address this one point because that was the crux of the discussion I was listening to. It all came down to those two points:
Pre-birth:
Rights of life supersede’s someone else’s right to their body’s use without their consent.

Post-birth:
Rights of life no longer supersede someone else’s right to their body’s use without their consent.

If you want to move on to other points, the that implies you concede this is the case. Can’t fix this problem and want to move on to other areas of the topic.

 

[Russell_SA]

The woman says, “I was just so stressed out by this whole thing. I didn’t want to feed it. Anyway, why should I have to take responsibility for its care?”

The woman does not have to give up her bodily autonomy to care for the child here. She is not medically hooked up to the child’s body to care for it. It’s a distinction that our society identifies as different. Even our deceased have to give permission for their bodies to be used for someone else’s benefit over that sick person’s right to life. Since this is not the case of someone being attached to someone else, using their body to sustain them, isn’t this an example of a straw man argument where you presented a case similar but different enough to not actually be the case presented? The situations are not really the same, are they? Or do you see it differently?

Now, would anyone argue that the woman has no responsibility towards this baby? Whether we like it or not, when a woman is pregnant with a baby, she is the only person in the world who is able to look after them. Again, we’re not even asking the woman to do anything - during pregnancy, you do not have to actively care for the child, because it’s a completely natural bodily process that takes care of itself. Rather, we are saying that the woman cannot actively kill her child.

Again this is a right to life vs right of someone’s bodily autonomy: So in the episode I was listening to the issue was about special rights of the preborn that changes once they are born.
Preborn: fetus has a right to their life over the mother’s right to her own body and what it is used for.
Born: the child has a right to their life but not over the mother’s right to her own body and what it is used for.

That’s special privilege as they described it or is it not the case?

There is no formula milk in the cabin. For the baby to survive long enough to eat solid food, the woman is going to have to breastfeed them (remember that she is a new mother and is producing milk).

This would be a good point that someone needed to bring up in the discussion. But they didn’t so, I’m not sure how the host and guest would address this. I agree that it is not unreasonable to provide milk for a child in that situation. But we don’t force people, even the ones that created the victim, like the death row inmate, to give blood to save their victims. Would we hold the woman accountable for not breastfeeding the child if we would not hold a man accountable for not donating blood?

But again, abortion is not simply “withholding care”. So let’s add another element to the thought experiment:

So if the abortion process was just to allow the fetus to die by disconnection to the mother, that would be withholding care correct?

Now, this is a better analogy to pregnancy, where a woman can “escape” the situation of being pregnant by having an abortion. Is it okay for the woman to kill the baby in the crib to escape her predicament? Then it is also wrong for a woman to kill her son or daughter in her womb in order to get out of pregnancy.

Currently, post-birth, the woman can care for the child without giving up her bodily autonomy for care, then she is fine. But if the child needed her blood to survive or any other part of her body, the woman has to give consent. Same as if it was a man there. That is why we do not force death row inmates to give up any part of their body to save the life of their victims or any random person on the street to be picked up because their bone marrow matches someone else that needs it. Currently, consent of someone’s bodily usage supersedes someone’s right to life, regardless of the age of development of that person and the situation they are in. Or do you see it differently as to what is the case now?

 

[minkymurph]

Shifting to the degree of the act to cause the outcome is a separate conversation. What degree of safety did the death row inmate take to prevent their victims from not having that outcome? That’s a separate issue than the discussion of now that the event has occurred, do we force the death row inmate to give up their bodily autonomy to save the life of their victim? No we don’t because that person still has the right to give or remove consent for how their body is to be used for that victim. That is what the conversation focused on, there were attempts to go into the degree of risk but it was still all about consent of the individual over the person’s right to life.

Focusing purely on the right of the mother to withdraw her consent in terms of the right of fetus to use her body, are there in your view any circumstance in which the law should not permit her to withdraw that consent?

 

[Russell_SA]

Focusing purely on the right of the mother to withdraw her consent in terms of the right of fetus to use her body, are there in your view any circumstance in which the law should not permit her to withdraw that consent?

I don’t know. What circumstance would that be, I don’t know. Could you offer a suggestion to address?

It’s back to the idea of rights of the body of the individual supersede the rights of other people use of that body to sustain their own life. Does the person whose body is needed have a right to say yes or no to the situation? That is what was being addressed. They could take a social hit for not offering help, but should they be forced to make that decision against their will? To allow someone else to force their body into use? We do not do this for any other group of people except for pregnant women. We don’t force the deceased to give up their useless organs to save lives or for science research. We don’t force death row inmates to donate their bodies to their victims. We don’t force parents to give up their bodily rights for the life of their born children etc. It’s only in the case of the unborn do we allow the right of the individual’s right to life to supersede another person’s right to their body’s use.

 

[Russell_SA]

I see where you are going.

Assault involves doing something/ It is an act. Not performing an abortion is not doing something - omission. At law it is not the case fetus does or does not have a right to occupy a womb. It is the case doctors are not permitted to perform abortions notwithstanding those declared lawful.

So this could be looked at like a person driving and accidentally hits a bystander. That was not assault there, but the person damaged was the result of the driver’s actions. The driver is responsible for the improvement of that person’s recovery. But they are not required to sacrifice their body for that person’s recovery. Or did I not address what you are talking about here?

We don’t have to impose a duty of care the same the same level for born children as they have access to alternatives - the fetus does not. The only way a fetus can become a ‘born’ child through occupation of womb. We don’t have artificial wombs - at least not yet. It is not possible to transplant the fetus into another womb - again yet.

Level of care is not the issue they were discussing for correcting the result of the event that caused this problem. Well it may in the idea that the victim has access to care available, just not at the expense of the perpetrator’s body. But does the driver get hit with a different legal case if the victim dies because the driver refused to allow their body or body’s fluids to sustain the life of the person they hit and the person dies because of that lack of treatment? Believe that’s a manslaughter case then. Or does the legal system not allow that issue to take account based on the results of the survivability of the victim? Because we don’t have the organs needed to sustain the person hit by the car, is the driver required to donate them?

The question then is when in what circumstances should a fetus be permitted to occupy a womb, and when should it not be? Most countries that have abortion legislation have a legal cut-off point. Thus, after this point it can be said the fetus in effect has a right to occupy a womb irrespective of how the mother feels. Would the arguments you have cited here change that? That the mother can terminate the pregnancy on demand at any point?

If we are to grant rights to everyone of an event that forced that person to be able to survive on the person or persons involved, then we would have to have a murder investigation for every miscarriage. But getting into how to adjust the legal system to the same rigorousness of a child death for a fetus death is a separate issue. This discussion was just about the idea, why do fetuses have special rights over the body of their mother but the born child does not for either of their parents? Can we have a system where one group of people have special rights over all the others?

 

[minkymurph]

I don’t know. What circumstance would that be, I don’t know. Could you offer a suggestion to address?

Yes - and did in an earlier post. #29

I stand to be corrected but I think you replied to this post?

It’s back to the idea of rights of the body of the individual supersede the rights of other people use of that body to sustain their own life.

Synonymous with #29

Most countries that have abortion legislation have a legal cut-off point. Thus, it can be said the effect of this cut-off point is the fetus has a right to use the body of the mother irrespective of whether she consents of not. Would you agree with this?

If you agree this is what the law currently says - should it be changed and allow the mother to terminate the pregnancy on demand and at any point for the sake of compatibility with the law regarding a born child’s use of another body?

 

[Russell_SA]

You’re arguing that fetuses supposedly have “special rights”, but ignore the fact that they’re the only group of people that it’s legal to kill.

By killing the fetus, you’re taking away its right to life. By forcing the mother to carry the fetus to term, you’re “signing her up” for a nine month period of taking care of it. After that, she can put the child up for adoption if she wants.

Murder vs inconvenience. Which is the bigger crime?

The father’s child would die too if the father decides to remove himself from his child. Is he murdering his child or removing medical assistance if there is no other medical aid available? He still has a right be hooked up to his child or not. Otherwise we need to change the laws to enforce this on everyone. People registered in the bone marrow data base can now be picked up against their will and forced to give bone marrow to someone needing it. Or do you see this differently?

Are we murdering people because we do not force the deceased to give up their organs to save people’s lives? Since they are not signing up for anything that has a time limit of nine months.

post birth people have a right to how their body is used over someone else’s right to life

pre birth people have a right to someone else’s body over that person’s right to how they want their body used.

That is the situation they were discussing: the fetus has special rights that no one else has a right to once they are born.

Or do you see this response as unfair to what you addressed and missed a point?

 

[Stephen168]

It all came down to those two points:
Pre-birth:
Rights of life supersede’s someone else’s right to their body’s use without their consent.

Post-birth:
Rights of life no longer supersede someone else’s right to their body’s use without their consent.

Or one point: parents have on obligation to provide food and shelter for their children. This obligation requires them to do things they may not want to do when they must do it. They “give up their bodily autonomy.”
A pregnant woman, just like the woman who was “stuck” in the cabin during a blizzard, is the only person who is able to care for the child.

Why would this change after they are born?

After the child is born, the mother is no longer the only person who is available to care for the child. Adoption would now be a possibility.

1. Pregnancy is not as horrendous as being used by the violinists body.

The level is violation is always in question. Misdemeanor vs felony for example. We are asking a mother to provide food and shelter for her baby until a time when someone else could take over -vs- killing her baby. Remembering the claim we cannot discriminate against a pregnant worker because being pregnant is not usually an impediment to work. A minor inconvenience -vs- dismemberment.

Is it okay for the woman to kill the baby in the crib to escape her predicament?
Russell_SA;14557863:

Currently, post-birth, the woman can care for the child without giving up her bodily autonomy for care, then she is fine.

You didn’t directly answer the question. Is it okay for the woman to refuse to feed the baby, due to her right to bodily autonomy? Is it okay for the woman to kill the baby to reestablish her bodily autonomy?

 

[Russell_SA]

Yes - and did in an earlier post. #29

I stand to be corrected but I think you replied to this post?

I believe I addressed #29 on #54. If not let me know.

Synonymous with #29

Most countries that have abortion legislation have a legal cut-off point. Thus, it can be said the effect of this cut-off point is the fetus has a right to use the body of the mother irrespective of whether she consents of not. Would you agree with this?

If you agree this is what the law currently says - should it be changed and allow the mother to terminate the pregnancy on demand and at any point for the sake of compatibility with the law regarding a born child’s use of another body?

I’m not sure about this because once it is documented that the woman was aware of the medical issue and then consented to continue with the medical assistance of allowing her body to continue to be used to sustain this person’s life, could she then take it away? That’s a hard one. So I’ll leave that up to the discussion of the people involved. I don’t have an answer for this issue. What’s your take on this? I believe the people having the discussion I listened to would conclude: I believe they can, even if it results in the victim’s death. Bad taste for sure, but that’s where we stand currently.

 

[minkymurph]

Can we have a system where one group of people have special rights over all the others?

We can and we do. There are many laws that grant special rights to one group of people over another, though granted not in terms of use of another’s body.

You say you are arguing an idea. What is proposed could never be anything other than an idea. It could never become a legal reality.

As an idea or hypothetical and as a paper exercise we could say the fetus does not have a right to occupy a body and it’s physical need for a uterus should not supersede the mother’s desire that it not continue to do so, but the fact that someone does not have a legal right to something does not in itself mean it should automatically be denied them. The doctrine of estoppel for example gives the courts the authority to deny an individual their rights denies rights on the ground it would be inequitable to permit them to assert their right and if they were it would produce an unjust result. We don’t deny others many things we have no legal obligation to give them, and legalities aside there is also good old mercy. Of course we could choose to ignore all this and run with the idea or hypothetical paper exercise. In which case you could say pretty much anything is OK if you wanted to.