Abortion question

[minkymurph]

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

You did - I was typing while you were posting.

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.

The legal cut-off point for abortion is determined on the basis that by 25 weeks (I think) the fetus can live independently of the mother, thus fully human and entitled to the full protection of the law. If we don’t have a cut-off point we have abortion on demand and the unborn that may in fact be full term would have no legal protection. I don’t think anyone wants that. Aristotle may have endorsed it but I think his views on women are best left in the Greek archives.

 

[Russell_SA]

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.
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.

So you would be ok with everyone loosing their rights to their body if someone post-born required their body to survive, like rare bone marrow donors, etc. That’s the logical conclusion to that response or am I wrong? They no longer have the choice to make the right decision, that freedom has been removed from them by the government.

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.

You have a right to swing your arm, but not to hit my face. So the argument about what degree you hit my face is in question now? No, no its not. You never get a right to touch my face without my consent ever. That’s an example of a hard line in law. Same with bodily autonomy. No one has a right to just 1 oz of your blood or 2 pints of your blood. They don’t have a right to any of your body ever, regardless of the situation without your consent. That’s the situation being discussed.

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?

I don’t believe you are equating the two scenarios the same way. The scenario discussed was where someone was physically hooked up to another person or required another person’s body parts of blood, organs, etc. to sustain life. I believe changing the scenario to one similar but not the actual situation and then asking me to address that one as if I was addressing the other is moving the target and creating a straw-man argument here. Or am I wrong on that? I disagree with you link of bodily autonomy to someone not actually reliant upon someone else’s body to sustain their life. But I do agree that if person has the availability to make a sandwich for someone to keep them alive, then they should try to, but not at the expense of their own survival.

 

[Stephen168]

I don’t believe you are equating the two scenarios the same way. The scenario discussed was where someone was physically hooked up to another person or required another person’s body parts of blood, organs, etc. to sustain life. I believe changing the scenario to one similar but not the actual situation and then asking me to address that one as if I was addressing the other is moving the target and creating a straw-man argument here. Or am I wrong on that?

Yes, you are wrong on that. Your scenario is not the same as being pregnant; a false analogy. I pointed out five reasons why. You are using your scenario to justify the killing of a baby, so the scenario should closely match the situation a pregnant woman finds herself in.

When you come to a Catholic forum to discuss morals, teleology will be part of the discussion. As we have pointed out and you have ignored, the purpose of intercourse by design includes reproduction. It is a reproductive act. Another point is that the purpose of the uterus by design is to provide food and shelter for the baby. Your attempt to require the use of male body fluids, organs, cells, etc is not their designed purpose.

A better scenario for pregnancy is the woman stuck in a cabin during a blizzard with a baby.

So you would be ok with everyone loosing their rights to their body if someone post-born required their body to survive, like rare bone marrow donors, etc. That’s the logical conclusion to that response or am I wrong? They no longer have the choice to make the right decision, that freedom has been removed from them by the government.

Bone marrow is not a uterus. The government requires parents to take care of their children, so the government doesn’t have to take care of them, and I am fine with that.

You have a right to swing your arm, but not to hit my face. So the argument about what degree you hit my face is in question now? No, no its not.

Yes, yes it is. After you hit my face, can I dismember you? Or would something less severe be more appropriate?

But I do agree that if person has the availability to make a sandwich for someone to keep them alive, then they should try to, but not at the expense of their own survival.

Good. A pregnant woman is being required to make a sandwich for her child.

 

[Russell_SA]

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.

I’m not really just doing this as an academic exercise. I was just wanting to see where this discussion would go since that show did not allow for people to take time to stop and understand what each side was presenting. I’d like to understand each sides fairly for what people are trying to get to and see where the actual sticking point is. That’s what is missing in these political policy debates is that it’s never a conversation where each side believes they are being heard, only just talking over each other. If I can find a resolution to this issue and an understanding of both sides, then when this topic comes up I can jump right to were the sticking point is and start from there again.

 

[minkymurph]

I’m not really just doing this as an academic exercise. I was just wanting to see where this discussion would go since that show did not allow for people to take time to stop and understand what each side was presenting. I’d like to understand each sides fairly for what people are trying to get to and see where the actual sticking point is. That’s what is missing in these political policy debates is that it’s never a conversation where each side believes they are being heard, only just talking over each other. If I can find a resolution to this issue and an understanding of both sides, then when this topic comes up I can jump right to were the sticking point is and start from there again.

What I would put into the debate purely from a legal perspective is creation of an absolute right. I don’t know how rights operate in your part of world, but in the UK there are absolute rights, limited rights and qualified rights. If we run with the argument the fetus does not have the right to use someone else’s body to survive in the absence of their consent, does it not have the right at all under any circumstances? If so, an absolute right has been created.

Legislature’s do not rush into creating absolute rights, and there are good reasons not to do so. As the issue of consent if fundamental to the argument, consent must be defined. Consideration of when and in what circumstances could consent be deemed to have been given. If consent has been given can it be withdrawn and when and in what circumstances? If an absolute right were created the woman could withdraw her consent at any time and for any reason. Such a right would raise ethical dilemma’s.

 

[Russell_SA]

Yes, you are wrong on that. Your scenario is not the same as being pregnant; a false analogy. I pointed out five reasons why. You are using your scenario to justify the killing of a baby, so the scenario should closely match the situation a pregnant woman finds herself in.

Addressed in #49. Sorry you don’t like the response, but it did address your points.
Which scenario? The death row inmate not being forced to give up any of his body to the victims? The driver of the car not being forced to give up any of his body to the passengers? Both of those examples point out that someone, regardless of how they created the victim, intentionally or not, are not required to give up any part of their body for the victim. But prebirth, the woman has to. That’s a very fair and accurate analogy of the double standard of where this issue is at. The preborn get special privilege that the born do not. Everyone reading this understands that, it’s very clear as to what those examples portray as to the responses people were giving.
These examples addressed people’s issues with how the fetus is disconnected from the mother, that she was there voluntarily engaging in a risky behavior, etc. I don’t see why those examples don’t address those points or what you are trying to argue now.

When you come to a Catholic forum to discuss morals, teleology will be part of the discussion. As we have pointed out and you have ignored, the purpose of intercourse by design includes reproduction. It is a reproductive act. Another point is that the purpose of the uterus by design is to provide food and shelter for the baby. Your attempt to require the use of male body fluids, organs, cells, etc is not their designed purpose.

I’ve addressed each point as I understand the response. If you don’t think I did, then point out where you don’t believe I did. You are really starting to sound like you just don’t like the response and are not offering feed back as to what you think is not being addressed. Really starting to tire me out with these and I could care less at this point if you don’t like the responses I gave or not.

A better scenario for pregnancy is the woman stuck in a cabin during a blizzard with a baby.

No my scenarios are better.
See how that doesn’t actually explain why they are better or what was not being addressed or anything helpful at all.

Bone marrow is not a uterus. The government requires parents to take care of their children, so the government doesn’t have to take care of them, and I am fine with that.
Yes, yes it is. After you hit my face, can I dismember you? Or would something less severe be more appropriate?

The purpose and type of organ or bodily fluids was never the issue, what ever it’s purpose is for. It’s the idea that one side is arguing that no one has a right to someone else’s body regardless of the situation without that person’s consent to allow their body to be used for that purpose. No one has a right to 1 second of a forced blood donation to 9 months of a forced blood donation. 1 second to someone’s uterus to 9 months of someone’s uterus, even if they are an innocent bystander of the action. That is why we don’t force death row inmates to give up any part of their body to their victims, parents to give up any part of their body to their children post birth, etc. The idea that there are other options available is not part of the argument because there are cases where someone needs something that only another person can give up voluntarily for but is key to the person’s survival. The other person had to volunteer to be willing to give up part of their body for someone else.

Good. A pregnant woman is being required to make a sandwich for her child.

But not to give up her body as the sandwich without her consent any more than her father does to the people in his car after the accident.

 

[Russell_SA]

What I would put into the debate purely from a legal perspective is creation of an absolute right. I don’t know how rights operate in your part of world, but in the UK there are absolute rights, limited rights and qualified rights. If we run with the argument the fetus does not have the right to use someone else’s body to survive in the absence of their consent, does it not have the right at all under any circumstances? If so, an absolute right has been created.

Legislature’s do not rush into creating absolute rights, and there are good reasons not to do so. As the issue of consent if fundamental to the argument, consent must be defined. Consideration of when and in what circumstances could consent be deemed to have been given. If consent has been given can it be withdrawn and when and in what circumstances? If an absolute right were created the woman could withdraw her consent at any time and for any reason. Such a right would raise ethical dilemma’s.

We would have to change the law to state that no one has a right over their body at the expense of the victims of the event. So people driving the car in the accident, even if unintentional, would have to give up their bodily rights to save the life of the victims of the event. Death row inmates would have to give up their bodily rights to their victims, etc. Not to the extent of loosing organs, but could for say, being hooked up for the term of the recovery period. If the victim needed to use the driver’s kidneys for filtering, then the driver gets hooked up for a limited term, up to a 9 month period. Even if that means they are in the bed next to the victim for that entire time. Do you see everyone being willing to do that, when there are no medical alternatives? At this point the fetus does have the right to life as much as anyone else. But no one has a right to someone else’s body for to survive.

I could see an argument for consent granted after the woman has been informed that this is her current medical condition and if she decides at that point to move forward, then she would be obligated to move forward with the full term of the pregnancy. But that goes into a different conversation of when should consent be restricted to not being allowed to be changed if situations change or even if they don’t, can someone loose their right to remove consent after it’s been granted. Is it better to always have consent and allow people to have bad taste in judgment about ethical situations because the right of the individual’s body supersedes anyone else right to live?

 

[minkymurph]

There is also an issue with the application and effect of the fetus’ right to life.

Thus, if we say the fetus has a right to life, how and in what circumstances can this be asserted? Where a right cannot be asserted, it is not in effect a right in that it is not a right that has any application or merit. Where we grant rights we must decide when and in what circumstances they can be asserted, and facilitate assertion of that right.

Where the fetus cannot survive ‘but for’ a womb and the womb is denied through consent, the effect is consent negates the right.

Rights are not dependent on consent. If consent is required to assert a right, it is not a right. Thus, it cannot be said fetus has a right to life if asserting that right is dependent on the mothers consent.

 

[minkymurph]

We would have to change the law to state that no one has a right over their body at the expense of the victims of the event.

As far as I understand it this is the current law and thus it does not need changed, though perhaps not stated in the terms suggested.

At law the fetus currently does not have a right enshrined in law over the mothers body any more than a born child with the exception of unlawful abortion. Thus, I can’t see how a change in the law would be of any great benefit other than to facilitate abortion on demand.

As far as I know in other jurisdictions doctors have the right to refuse to perform an abortion. Would a change in law include compelling them to perform abortions?

So people driving the car in the accident, even if unintentional, would have to give up their bodily rights to save the life of the victims of the event. Death row inmates would have to give up their bodily rights to their victims, etc. Not to the extent of loosing organs, but could for say, being hooked up for the term of the recovery period. If the victim needed to use the driver’s kidneys for filtering, then the driver gets hooked up for a limited term, up to a 9 month period. Even if that means they are in the bed next to the victim for that entire time. Do you see everyone being willing to do that, when there are no medical alternatives? At this point the fetus does have the right to life as much as anyone else. But no one has a right to someone else’s body for to survive.

The scenarios you outline are not realistic comparisons. Even if the driver of the car or convicted criminals on death row were willing what you suggest is highly unlikely to be possible.

What this argument looks to me is seeking a means to justify abortion through some means other than the unborn are not human - they are human ‘but’…
This argument in my view is no more credible than the unborn are not human, and has no greater possibility of success. We can discuss any number of hypothetical scenarios, but at the end of the day we are still left with the same fundamental issues I have outlined that are an integral and essential part of the argument. They cannot be considered separately or as an after thought once it has been agreed the fetus has no right to the mother’s body. It is possible to disprove one’s own hypothesis and be compelled to start again where fundamental issues are not fully addressed.

I could see an argument for consent granted after the woman has been informed that this is her current medical condition and if she decides at that point to move forward, then she would be obligated to move forward with the full term of the pregnancy. But that goes into a different conversation of when should consent be restricted to not being allowed to be changed if situations change or even if they don’t, can someone loose their right to remove consent after it’s been granted. Is it better to always have consent and allow people to have bad taste in judgment about ethical situations because the right of the individual’s body supersedes anyone else right to live?

The issue of consent is fundamental to the argument so it can’t be a different conversation.

The right over one’s own body is not absolute. There are many other circumstances in which we intervene in terms of what individuals can do with their body in the absence of anyone depending on them for survival. What about someone who self harms? Or tries to commit suicide? Do we not intervene on these occasions?

 

[minkymurph]

On a different tack, if we say the fetus is human, can it receive sensory information? Can it sense pain? Research carried out by two people whose names currently escape me suggest the fetus can feel pain once the primordial line has formed @ 12 weeks. Thus, we say the fetus cannot remain in the womb in the absence of the mother’s consent, does the mother have a right to subject the fetus to pain should she not wish to continue with the pregnancy?

 

[Vonsalza]

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.

Are you arguing that these people were not born first?

Even if they lost their bodily autonomy, they assumably had it first. Additionally, losing this autonomy via disease or accident is not the same as temporarily losing it for 9 months because you decided to “fool around”, is it?

If you don’t see the difference, I’ll explain - Intent.

No one intends to get sick or hurt. Virtually anyone that participates in sex has full intent and is aware of the possible consequence of pregnancy. Ergo the culpability for the affected in those situations is quite different, as I’m sure you’ll rationally agree.

 

[Stephen168]

When you come to a Catholic forum to discuss morals, teleology will be part of the discussion. As we have pointed out and you have ignored, the purpose of intercourse by design includes reproduction. It is a reproductive act. Another point is that the purpose of the uterus by design is to provide food and shelter for the baby. Your attempt to require the use of male body fluids, organs, cells, etc is not their designed purpose.
Russell_SA;14561324:

I’ve addressed each point as I understand the response. If you don’t think I did, then point out where you don’t believe I did.

OK

The purpose and type of organ or bodily fluids was never the issue, what ever it’s purpose is for.

This would be your typical response. Yet, it does matter. It matters because it answers the question; are we asking someone to do some ordinary and natural or extra ordinary and horrendous to feed and shelter their child -vs- killing and dismembering it.

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:

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

After you hit my face, can I dismember you? Or would something less severe be more appropriate?
Russell_SA;14561324:

The idea that there are other options available is not part of the argument…

You didn’t really answer the question. While you claim to “address” arguments you are actually “dismissing” them.

Good. A pregnant woman is being required to make a sandwich for her child.
Russell_SA;14561324:

But not to give up her body as the sandwich without her consent any more than her father does to the people in his car after the accident.

See point #5. In fact, I think this whole thread is you trying to make pregnancy into something horrendous and unnatural when in reality it is part of human nature.

 

[Russell_SA]

There is also an issue with the application and effect of the fetus’ right to life.

Thus, if we say the fetus has a right to life, how and in what circumstances can this be asserted? Where a right cannot be asserted, it is not in effect a right in that it is not a right that has any application or merit. Where we grant rights we must decide when and in what circumstances they can be asserted, and facilitate assertion of that right.

Where the fetus cannot survive ‘but for’ a womb and the womb is denied through consent, the effect is consent negates the right.

Rights are not dependent on consent. If consent is required to assert a right, it is not a right. Thus, it cannot be said fetus has a right to life if asserting that right is dependent on the mothers consent.

I see your point here but it is in conflict with someone’s right to bodily autonomy. Which one supersedes the other? What logical processes have been overlooked in the discussion so far as to addressing that conflict? Does right to bodily autonomy supersede another person’s right to someone else’s body if it is required for them to survive?

 

[Russell_SA]

The scenarios you outline are not realistic comparisons. Even if the driver of the car or convicted criminals on death row were willing what you suggest is highly unlikely to be possible.

What this argument looks to me is seeking a means to justify abortion through some means other than the unborn are not human - they are human ‘but’…
This argument in my view is no more credible than the unborn are not human, and has no greater possibility of success. We can discuss any number of hypothetical scenarios, but at the end of the day we are still left with the same fundamental issues I have outlined that are an integral and essential part of the argument. They cannot be considered separately or as an after thought once it has been agreed the fetus has no right to the mother’s body. It is possible to disprove one’s own hypothesis and be compelled to start again where fundamental issues are not fully addressed.

This example was just to illustrate the limits of the law and the full application of the law. If you have a better example to illustrate the point let me know. The situation, to me, only appears not realistic because this is the exact situation the woman is in, but no one is actually being argued to do what the mother is doing. We don’t have a lot of examples of events that are illegal, such as the case I illustrated about the deathrow inmates and the drivers but everyone can see the connection for how the law is applied unfairly to women and not to everyone else.

 

[Russell_SA]

As far as I understand it this is the current law and thus it does not need changed, though perhaps not stated in the terms suggested.

As I understand it, it is not the case that the victim of the event has any right to the people involved in creating the circumstance. So the passengers of the driver in the accident do not have a right to the bodily use of the driver. The victims of the deathrow inmate do not have any right to use the deathrow inmate’s body for their survival and recovery. Only the preborn have a right to use someone else’s body for their survival of the event they were placed in. But once they are born, then they loose that right. That’s the current situation as I understand it legally. The original conversation never concluded that the fetus was not a person, only that the person does not have rights to someone else’s body for it’s survival because no one has rights to someone else’s body for survival regardless of the situation except where consent is granted.

 

[Russell_SA]

The issue of consent is fundamental to the argument so it can’t be a different conversation.

The right over one’s own body is not absolute. There are many other circumstances in which we intervene in terms of what individuals can do with their body in the absence of anyone depending on them for survival. What about someone who self harms? Or tries to commit suicide? Do we not intervene on these occasions?

I was discussing here the idea of removing consent once consent has been granted or does someone always have a say over consent regardless if its been granted or not or how far along the process the person consented to. Sub-issue of the consent conversation. But the over all argument that was presented was that initially someone has to grant consent of how their body is to be used. Can they remove it later or do they loose the right to remove it later was the sub-issue of the consent conversation.

 

[Russell_SA]

The right over one’s own body is not absolute. There are many other circumstances in which we intervene in terms of what individuals can do with their body in the absence of anyone depending on them for survival. What about someone who self harms? Or tries to commit suicide? Do we not intervene on these occasions?

We can discuss those other issues later, but I’d just like to stay on this topic. It’s like when people point out the bad ideas of religion X and then someone says, “Well what about religious A, B, and C?”. We can discuss those other issues, but for now, lets wrap up the issues with religion X first. Then once we address that point, we can go into the next issues that come along and be familiar with the thought process.

 

[Russell_SA]

On a different tack, if we say the fetus is human, can it receive sensory information? Can it sense pain? Research carried out by two people whose names currently escape me suggest the fetus can feel pain once the primordial line has formed @ 12 weeks. Thus, we say the fetus cannot remain in the womb in the absence of the mother’s consent, does the mother have a right to subject the fetus to pain should she not wish to continue with the pregnancy?

Ok we can talk about that, but first off, Does another person have a right to someone else’s body to survive? Currently no one has a right to anyone’s body regardless of the time frame of duration, the level of pain and discomfort, whether the amount of fluids is regenerated quickly, etc. or even if the person was responsible for the victim’s current situation.

Once that’s resolved, then we can go into the best way to keep them connected or the best way to disconnect them in the most pain free way.

 

[Russell_SA]

Are you arguing that these people were not born first?

Even if they lost their bodily autonomy, they assumably had it first. Additionally, losing this autonomy via disease or accident is not the same as temporarily losing it for 9 months because you decided to “fool around”, is it?

If you don’t see the difference, I’ll explain - Intent.

No one intends to get sick or hurt. Virtually anyone that participates in sex has full intent and is aware of the possible consequence of pregnancy. Ergo the culpability for the affected in those situations is quite different, as I’m sure you’ll rationally agree.

This was just a misunderstanding. If you keep getting upset and snarky because you think I am intentionally dodging you or picking a fight. Sorry not the correct assumption here. If you think I did not address your point, the just state that and restate and emphasize what you are getting at so that I can understand what you are actually addressing instead of what I thought you were addressing. This is fundamental in communication. I assumed everyone already understood that and learned how to apply that in their lives by now. If you find me doing the same thing, then point it out and I’ll try not to do that again. It’s not my intention to do that. Just because this is a religious forum and a contentious issue doesn’t mean it has to be discussed that way.

Anyhoo… I was addressing the idea that fetuses are the same as people with locked in syndrome or in a coma. They have all the same rights to life as anyone else. But no one has a right to sustain their lives at the expense of someone else’s body; even if the person was the cause of that result. Only the fetus has that right, but once born, they loose that right. It’s the illustration of creating special privilege to one group of people that does not apply to everyone else.

If that did not address what you were discussing there, then just try the approach again. But coming across as upset that maybe I’m intentionally being dismissive or avoiding your point tires me out and I’ll move on to people with better temperaments.

The driver of the car did not intend on getting in an accident. So do all the people in his car have a right to his body to survive now? Consent to drive is not consent to give up his body to save the passengers and innocent bystanders. Same for sex, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. Or do you see something wrong with that analogy? If so, present a better one for clarification and explain why mine was not.

Anyone walking outside takes a risky behavior to possibly get sick but no one intends on getting sick. They could even wear medical protective masks to prevent the likelihood of sickness. When they get sick, did they consent to get sick because they were taking a risk of going outside? No they were not. Are they consenting to let the sickness run it’s course? No, they’ll take pain meds and allergy medicine to stop being sick. If they consented to get sick, they would go find a doctor and inject themselves with the virus.

 

[minkymurph]

Ok we can talk about that, but first off, Does another person have a right to someone else’s body to survive? Currently no one has a right to anyone’s body regardless of the time frame of duration, the level of pain and discomfort, whether the amount of fluids is regenerated quickly, etc. or even if the person was responsible for the victim’s current situation.

Once that’s resolved, then we can go into the best way to keep them connected or the best way to disconnect them in the most pain free way.

There is no law in the UK that states anyone has a right to use someone else’s body to survive.