Abortion question

[Russell_SA]

Not sure we can equate reckless behavior like a drunken binge that led to a one night stand, with driving to the corner store to pick up the morning paper.

What about situations where the woman was on birth control? Same as the father, being sober, wears a seat belt and his child wears a seat belt. Everyone is consenting to the risk and being as reasonably responsible as possible, but this was the result? But regardless of the how irresponsible the person was in the event, the argument is about consent of the person who’s body is needed to sustain the other person. How safe or irresponsible is the death row inmate towards their victims? We still don’t force death row inmates to give up their bodies to sustain the life of their victims.

 

[Vonsalza]

The only fail-proof way to avoid a ticket/jail for drunk driving is to fully abstain from drinking prior to driving. One little drink raises your risk from “zero”. You must accept responsibility for that, even if just tacitly.

Similarly, if you want to avoid the possibility of conception, you need to abstain from behavior that can produce a child. If you’re not of a traditional Catholic bend, there’s still plenty of other stuff you can do in the bedroom.

 

[Russell_SA]

The only fail-proof way to avoid a ticket/jail for drunk driving is to fully abstain from drinking prior to driving. One little drink raises your risk from “zero”. You must accept responsibility for that, even if just tacitly.

Similarly, if you want to avoid the possibility of conception, you need to abstain from behavior that can produce a child. If you’re not of a traditional Catholic bend, there’s still plenty of other stuff you can do in the bedroom.

The arguments were not about avoiding the issue, but about how we address this issue when it comes up. The argument presented was for granting special rights to a fetus that no other human has access to.
So everyone has a right to life, even fetuses.
No one has a right to sustain their life off the body of someone else without that person’s consent.
Those were the arguments put forth in the discussion I was listening to. How do we address those points that were presented?

 

[Lenten_ashes]

What about situations where the woman was on birth control? Same as the father, being sober, wears a seat belt and his child wears a seat belt. Everyone is consenting to the risk and being as reasonably responsible as possible, but this was the result? But regardless of the how irresponsible the person was in the event, the argument is about consent of the person who’s body is needed to sustain the other person. How safe or irresponsible is the death row inmate towards their victims? We still don’t force death row inmates to give up their bodies to sustain the life of their victims.

I hate abortion no matter what, as it is always murder, imho.

However, if it were limited to cases of rape/incest/life of mother It wouldn’t be much of a issue to me anymore…

And does this scenario of dad/son/sustainment of life in accident ever actually happen? Can you prodive documentation of at least one case in the last, say, 5 years? I watch world news practically everyday and have not seen such a case.

I think once you are detached, you have no right to become reattached w/o the consent of the person you seek reattachment to. Not trying to compare us to the animals, but as a atheist I’m sure you have a appreciation for nature and the natural order. The mother animal gives birth, raises for a short period, then splits. Seems to be the norm in this world…

 

[Russell_SA]

And does this scenario of dad/son/sustainment of life in accident ever actually happen? Can you prodive documentation of at least one case in the last, say, 5 years? I watch world news practically everyday and have not seen such a case.

I think once you are detached, you have no right to become reattached w/o the consent of the person you seek reattachment to. Not trying to compare us to the animals, but as a atheist I’m sure you have a appreciation for nature and the natural order. The mother animal gives birth, raises for a short period, then splits. Seems to be the norm in this world…

My atheism or your catholism isn’t part of the conversation. I was just wondering what people thought of the conversation I was listening to and about the points made.

How do we address the issue that fetuses have special rights that no one else has access to? The right to continue their life off of someone else’s body without that person’s consent.

As to finding an actual case of where a father was hooked up to their child, that is not the point of the conversation. It’s about addressing this in a way where people can see the issue that the pro-birth and pro-choice side have landed on.

But, to address your question as a side note, it is illegal for a hospital to do that to the father, so there would not be a case where that happened as a result.

 

[Thom18]

My atheism or your catholism isn’t part of the conversation. I was just wondering what people thought of the conversation I was listening to and about the points made.

How do we address the issue that fetuses have special rights that no one else has access to? The right to continue their life off of someone else’s body without that person’s consent.

As to finding an actual case of where a father was hooked up to their child, that is not the point of the conversation. It’s about addressing this in a way where people can see the issue that the pro-birth and pro-choice side have landed on.

But, to address your question as a side note, it is illegal for a hospital to do that to the father, so there would not be a case where that happened as a result.

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?

 

[Lenten_ashes]

My atheism or your catholism isn’t part of the conversation. I was just wondering what people thought of the conversation I was listening to and about the points made.

How do we address the issue that fetuses have special rights that no one else has access to? The right to continue their life off of someone else’s body without that person’s consent.

As to finding an actual case of where a father was hooked up to their child, that is not the point of the conversation. It’s about addressing this in a way where people can see the issue that the pro-birth and pro-choice side have landed on.

But, to address your question as a side note, it is illegal for a hospital to do that to the father, so there would not be a case where that happened as a result.

I brought up atheism and appealing to nature as I know that Catholicism and dogma is meaningless to you.

I’ve seen atheists frequently appeal to homosexual behavior of certain animals in order to justify that same behavior in human beings.

Detachment would be the sticking point for me here. If you are deatched you have no right to be reattached w/o consent of the person in question.

 

[Russell_SA]

I think once you are detached, you have no right to become reattached w/o the consent of the person you seek reattachment to. Not trying to compare us to the animals, but as a atheist I’m sure you have a appreciation for nature and the natural order. The mother animal gives birth, raises for a short period, then splits. Seems to be the norm in this world…

Why would attachment be the line? If the son was attached to his father without either of their consent, you still need both to consent to continue to move forward. So even if the child wanted to stay attached to stay alive, this does not supersede the father’s decision to be detached.

In the case of the mother, both the fetus and the mother did not consent to be attached. But for the fetus to stay alive, that does not supersede the mother’s decision to be detached. Obviously the fetus can not actually give or decline consent, just as a child in a coma can not give or decline consent. A medical proxy is needed in that case for the child. But the medical proxy’s decision to keep the fetus/child hooked up to the mother would not supersede the mother’s decision to disconnect.

Or do you see this issue differently

 

[Russell_SA]

I brought up atheism and appealing to nature as I know that Catholicism and dogma is meaningless to you.

I’ve seen atheists frequently appeal to homosexual behavior of certain animals in order to justify that same behavior in human beings.

Detachment would be the sticking point for me here. If you are deatched you have no right to be reattached w/o consent of the person in question.

Thanks we can discuss atheism and catholicsim comparisons separately if you want, but I’m here just to talk about this conversation that I listened to. Feel free to up that conversation on another thread and let me know where to find it.

 

[minkymurph]

Parents do have a legal duty to the care of their children, but the parents are not required to go as far as to be forced to give up their body for the care of their children. We do not force parents to donate blood, marrow, organs, etc. to save their child’s lives. It is medical assault if the state forced parents to undergo that treatment to save their child’s lives. Same as it would be medical assault to force death row inmates to give up their bodies to their victims. As I see it, we would have to impose a duty of care to the level of the fetus that we would for the born children. Where the children have a right to their parent’s body just as much as the fetus does.

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.

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.

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?

 

[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?

It is legal for them to die because we are not hooking up people post birth to other people. We are only allowing this for the group of people prebirth. That’s how the argument went I believe. So if someone needed to stay alive on the body of someone else post-birth, we let them die if the person does not give consent to use their body to keep that person alive. But prebirth, it’s the other way around. The right to life supersedes someone’s control over their own body pre-birth, but after birth it’s the other way around.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Why would attachment be the line? If the son was attached to his father without either of their consent, you still need both to consent to continue to move forward. So even if the child wanted to stay attached to stay alive, this does not supersede the father’s decision to be detached.

In the case of the mother, both the fetus and the mother did not consent to be attached. But for the fetus to stay alive, that does not supersede the mother’s decision to be detached. Obviously the fetus can not actually give or decline consent, just as a child in a coma can not give or decline consent. A medical proxy is needed in that case for the child. But the medical proxy’s decision to keep the fetus/child hooked up to the mother would not supersede the mother’s decision to disconnect.

Or do you see this issue differently

Russell, In ordinary circumstances I think she did give consent the moment she had unprotected sex.

That is prodived that she is not mentally retarded and no rape/force issues were in play.

This is like me knocking up a woman(sorry for the graphic terms, lol), then when they come after me for child support, I simply tell them I only consented for sex, not the dirty diapers and support payments that come with it. How do you think that will go over with the judge? Even if I hire a dream team of attorneys?

 

[Vonsalza]

The arguments were not about avoiding the issue, but about how we address this issue when it comes up. The argument presented was for granting special rights to a fetus that no other human has access to.
So everyone has a right to life, even fetuses.
No one has a right to sustain their life off the body of someone else without that person’s consent.
Those were the arguments put forth in the discussion I was listening to. How do we address those points that were presented?

The consent to pregnancy is a tacit part of intercourse. If it is unacceptable, don’t engage in the activity.

I’ll break it down a bit further. If you’re a human and you wish to engage in vaginal intercourse with the opposite sex, you tacitly consent to the probability of pregnancy. If this is not a condition that you are willing to accept, then the only way to make the probability of this condition manifesting “zero” is if you abstain from vaginal intercourse. This applies to both the male and female participants.

I will argue that if both participants wish to mitigate the risk of pregnancy by mutually participating in that mitigation, a child created from a union where the man wears a condom and the woman is observant in her birth-control methodology is a miracle and must live.

Now is it fair that women bear the responsibility of child-bearing in mammals? Maybe not. If you don’t like that, shake your fist at god if you’re a theist. If you’re not, shake your fist at the ocean from which you may have ultimately arisen. Neither will likely sympathize with you, however.

As to “No one has a right to sustain their life off the body of someone else without that person’s consent.”, the legal concept of “Duty to Rescue” pretty well puts that assertion in the trash-can, at least as an absolute.

Why do you think that assertion is true?

Also, if you don’t want a view “tainted” by Catholic thought, find another place to post.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

The consent to pregnancy is a tacit part of intercourse. If it is unacceptable, don’t engage in the activity.

I’ll break it down a bit further. If you’re a human and you wish to engage in vaginal intercourse with the opposite sex, you tacitly consent to the probability of pregnancy. If this is not a condition that you are willing to accept, then the only way to make the probability of this condition manifesting “zero” is if you abstain from vaginal intercourse. This applies to both the male and female participants.

I will argue that if both participants wish to mitigate the risk of pregnancy by mutually participating in that mitigation, a child created from a union where the man wears a condom and the woman is observant in her birth-control methodology is a miracle and must live.

Now is it fair that women bear the responsibility of child-bearing in mammals? Maybe not. If you don’t like that, shake your fist at god if you’re a theist. If you’re not, shake your fist at the ocean from which you may have ultimately arisen. Neither will likely sympathize with you, however.

As to “No one has a right to sustain their life off the body of someone else without that person’s consent.”, the legal concept of “Duty to Rescue” pretty well puts that assertion in the trash-can, at least as an absolute.

Why do you think that assertion is true?

Also, if you don’t want a view “tainted” by Catholic thought, find another place to post.

So my question is…in pregnancy … three people are involved…the mother, the father and the unborn.

Why does society grant so much authority to the one individual and none to the other 2 here? The Father often wants the child, and if the unborn could talk, he/she would likely say, no I dont want my head ripped off, thanks.

Yes, the unborn is housed in the mother, but it’s not like it’s a life sentence or something. 9 months is a baseball season.

If you snuff out that child’s life in the womb, you have not even given it a chance. If he/she gets in this strange accident like the OP describes and you choose to detach, at least we can say we gave the person a puncher’s chance in life. And we did not, by our own irresponsible actions, murder them…life’s tragic circumstances did that…

 

[Russell_SA]

Russell, In ordinary circumstances I think she did give consent the moment she had unprotected sex.

That is prodived that she is not mentally retarded and no rape/force issues were in play.

This is like me knocking up a woman(sorry for the graphic terms, lol), then when they come after me for child support, I simply tell them I only consented for sex, not the dirty diapers and support payments that come with it. How do you think that will go over with the judge? Even if I hire a dream team of attorneys?

So the father is granting consent to have his body used to sustain the life of anyone in the car if he gets in an accident? The death row inmate is granting consent to have their body used to sustain their victims? That is not the case as I understand it.

I believe you can sign away your parental rights to remove yourself from child support payments and any legal connection to the child that resulted. But that’s a side issue.

 

[Stephen168]

So I was listening to the Atheist Experience show out of Austin TX and they were discussion the abortion issue in the US.

The argument against abortion was what Christopher Hitchens puts forth: The fetus is a human just at an earlier stage of development, just as a child is to an adolescent is to a teenager, and so on. So the fetus is a group of people that are targeted for removal from society and as a society, we should guard all groups of people from being targeted this way because if we have it in our culture to be able to compartmentalize what we are doing to one group and not to the rest, then one day our group may be the target because the society has developed a comfort level of being about to think that way.

The argument against abortion was what the hosts of the Atheist Experience presented:
Everyone has a right to life in our culture. So the fetus has a right to life.
No one has a right to use someone else’s body for survival without that person’s consent.
So, the fetus has a right to life, just as everyone else does, but it does not have the right to force the mother to continue using her body to sustain it’s life against her will. This is granting special rights to a fetus that is not granted to any other group of people in our society. For instance, a father can not be forced to use his body to keep his son alive if his son needs his father’s body to sustain him. (Say for example, the father was driving and caused the accident that put his son in this condition where his father’s body was needed to save his son’s life.) The father must consent, at the hospital, to allow the hospital to use his body to save his son’s life till the son heals in 9 months.

So until we pass laws that allow the hospitals to force the parents to use their bodies to save their born children’s lives, we can not force mothers to use their bodies to keep their fetus alive.

What you have presented is a variation on the argument for abortion from “unplugging the violinist” ©1971. This argument has been challenged by the following points:

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.
2. We are morally obligated to care for our family; children, siblings, and parents.
3. 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.
4. Abortion is killing not just withholding care, or taking control of her body for 9 months.
5. Pregnancy is not as horrendous as being used by the violinists body.

A couple of interesting ad hominem observations to pro abortion feminists:

1. They claim it is easy for women to work during pregnancy unlike the person attached to the violinist.
2. Freedom of state control from caring for your child is inconsistent with the desire for state mandated: equal pay, quotas, father child support, ban of “sexist material”, or limits of private association (male only clubs.)

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.

 

[Russell_SA]

The consent to pregnancy is a tacit part of intercourse. If it is unacceptable, don’t engage in the activity.

So is driving a car and getting into a car accident. Consent to drive is not consent to accidents. Driving a car is not consent to give up your body to sustain the passenger’s lives if you get in an accident.

I’ll break it down a bit further. If you’re a human and you wish to engage in vaginal intercourse with the opposite sex, you tacitly consent to the probability of pregnancy. If this is not a condition that you are willing to accept, then the only way to make the probability of this condition manifesting “zero” is if you abstain from vaginal intercourse. This applies to both the male and female participants.

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.

I will argue that if both participants wish to mitigate the risk of pregnancy by mutually participating in that mitigation, a child created from a union where the man wears a condom and the woman is observant in her birth-control methodology is a miracle and must live.

I don’t see how claims of a miracle event have a bearing on the issue. Miracles claims get dismissed in the legal system as much as claims of any other supernatural references.

As to “No one has a right to sustain their life off the body of someone else without that person’s consent.”, the legal concept of “Duty to Rescue” pretty well puts that assertion in the trash-can, at least as an absolute.

No one get’s legally held accountable for not running into a burning building to rescue their own children. But this is shifting the discussion I believe. The fetus is not in danger of the environment any more than the victim of a death row inmate is. But we don’t force the death row inmate to give up any part of their body to sustain the life of their victims because again, the victim has a right to life, but not a right to the body of their attacker.

Also, if you don’t want a view “tainted” by Catholic thought, find another place to post.

Oh for fk sake, why did you go here? I did not tell anyone where I landed on this issue and was just wanting to discuss the points of the discussion I heard on the Atheist Experience program. Further attempts at trying to score points like this will be ignored.

 

[a_priori]

In the case of the mother, both the fetus and the mother did not consent to be attached.

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.

 

[PJM]

So I was listening to the Atheist Experience show out of Austin TX and they were discussion the abortion issue in the US.

The argument against abortion was what Christopher Hitchens puts forth: The fetus is a human just at an earlier stage of development, just as a child is to an adolescent is to a teenager, and so on. So the fetus is a group of people that are targeted for removal from society and as a society, we should guard all groups of people from being targeted this way because if we have it in our culture to be able to compartmentalize what we are doing to one group and not to the rest, then one day our group may be the target because the society has developed a comfort level of being about to think that way.

The argument against abortion was what the hosts of the Atheist Experience presented:
Everyone has a right to life in our culture. So the fetus has a right to life.
No one has a right to use someone else’s body for survival without that person’s consent.
So, the fetus has a right to life, just as everyone else does, but it does not have the right to force the mother to continue using her body to sustain it’s life against her will. This is granting special rights to a fetus that is not granted to any other group of people in our society. For instance, a father can not be forced to use his body to keep his son alive if his son needs his father’s body to sustain him. (Say for example, the father was driving and caused the accident that put his son in this condition where his father’s body was needed to save his son’s life.) The father must consent, at the hospital, to allow the hospital to use his body to save his son’s life till the son heals in 9 months.

So until we pass laws that allow the hospitals to force the parents to use their bodies to save their born children’s lives, we can not force mothers to use their bodies to keep their fetus alive.

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

 

[Vonsalza]

So is driving a car and getting into a car accident. Consent to drive is not consent to accidents. Driving a car is not consent to give up your body to sustain the passenger’s lives if you get in an accident.

You absolutely consent to the increased probability of having a car accident by virtue of driving. And as you are responsible for your passengers, it does cause most people to drive differently when they’re not the only person in the vehicle. I’m not near as speedy when my wife’s in the car.

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.

Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.

Yes. Yes it is. It is your evolutionary mechanism for reproduction. The orgasm just further incentivizes it.

No one get’s legally held accountable for not running into a burning building to rescue their own children. But this is shifting the discussion I believe.

Certainly an extreme, dramatic example you have there. How about if you see a car crash, it catches fire and the driver is unconscious and a security camera comes out showing you just stood there and watched? I’m not saying you’ll necessarily be jailed, but it won’t go well for you.
Do you think I made up the legal concept of “Duty to Rescue”?

The fetus is not in danger of the environment any more than the victim of a death row inmate is. But we don’t force the death row inmate to give up any part of their body to sustain the life of their victims because again, the victim has a right to life, but not a right to the body of their attacker.

To the contrary, we do have the inmate give up their body. The justice system is going to forcibly “eject” their consciousness from it.

Oh for fk sake, why did you go here? I did not tell anyone where I landed on this issue and was just wanting to discuss the points of the discussion I heard on the Atheist Experience program. Further attempts at trying to score points like this will be ignored.

You went on a forum for a website called “Catholic Answers” and then said “…your catholism isn’t part of the conversation.”

Are you serious? :hypno:

Oh for fk sake

And watch your “mouth”. If you can’t follow the language rules on these forums, buzz off.