No I don’t.
No I’m not. The fetus has separate DNA from the mother, but it’s most certainly not bodily separate. Her lungs breathe for it, her digestive system feeds it, her liver and kidneys filter it’s waste products.
Who denies any of that?goout:
No I don’t.
No I’m not. The fetus has separate DNA from the mother, but it’s most certainly not bodily separate. Her lungs breathe for it, her digestive system feeds it, her liver and kidneys filter it’s waste products.
It’s not bodily separate. To claim that violates science is to simply signal that you may not understand science.
Sure. Pregnancy exacts a cost virtually 100% of the time. Sometimes that cost is death, even today, even in America.
So… are you wanting to talk about autonomy in general or bodily autonomy? I’m not sure where you are going.
Bodily autonomy and independence are not synonyms. You’re just trying to stretch goal-posts because the discussion isn’t going well for you.
Ok sure.goout:
Bodily autonomy and independence are not synonyms. You’re just trying to stretch goal-posts because the discussion isn’t going well for you.
You’ve arrived at well-poisoning, so not very good for you. At least as rational discussions go…Hume:
Ok sure.goout:
Bodily autonomy and independence are not synonyms. You’re just trying to stretch goal-posts because the discussion isn’t going well for you.
Let’s see. Children in the womb are human, but they are helpless, and because they depend on the mother’s body to survive, they are expendable because the mother has a right to bodily autonomy unhindered by the physical demands a child places.
At the very least, I can state your position.
I am not afraid of your sophistry. I can admit what you say, I understand what you say, and can recapitulate it.
And the position is barbaric.
How we doin?
It’s called a metaphor.goout:
What???
Ok, well. I’m out for now.Hume:
It’s called a metaphor.goout:
What???
You are dancing around, avoiding the vague emptiness of your argument, like a person who forgot to put pants on, wondering what all the fuss is about.
When a pregnancy is dangerous there are signs and the doctors will know. Otherwise there is no reason to assume it will result in death.
My friend. Stating it doesn’t make it true. Some pregnancies are dangerous. But saving the mothers life is already allowed for by Catholic theology…
That’s not free moral agency. Free moral agency doesn’t allow the killing of another simply to protect what might happen.
We don’t know that. Now your the one making the assertion that I don’t have to accept. The constitution was built on the given which you have substituted for your own at a later date, and then use to claim libertas. These rights have been “endowed by our creator”. You can’t substitute and rewrite at will. That’s one place where the argument falls apart.
This assumes that death or grievous harm is consistently preventable in the case of pregnancy which, to say the very least and to put it as politely as possible, it is not. Most assuredly.Hume:
When a pregnancy is dangerous there are signs and the doctors will know. Otherwise there is no reason to assume it will result in death.
Sure, but your theology requires that she actually be exposed to the peril in order to do it. And then it’s subject to someones discretion as to whether the case was legitimate.
Not a child, no. But a fetus, certainly. Happens all the time in species apart from ours.
You can enact the least reasonable force necessary to remove the threat - oh yes you certainly can. Apropos, you can banish the vagrant from your property even if he/she doesn’t look like they’re armed.
But it does certainly allow you to remove the threat from you. As such, free moral agency absolutely “allows” abortion.
We know that the moral null is “undefined”. This means there is no hard and fast rule as a default state. There’s no reason to not have an abortion.
We’ve amended the constitution several times, actually. And the SCOTUS defended a woman’s right to an abortion as a constitutional matter.
The self-defense isn’t a consistent justification either. In fact it is equally so.
So is Hume.
If the well is poisoned, there is no point to pretending its not. Drinking from that well is even worse for you.goout:
You’ve arrived at well-poisoning, so not very good for you. At least as rational discussions go…Hume:
Ok sure.goout:
Bodily autonomy and independence are not synonyms. You’re just trying to stretch goal-posts because the discussion isn’t going well for you.
Let’s see. Children in the womb are human, but they are helpless, and because they depend on the mother’s body to survive, they are expendable because the mother has a right to bodily autonomy unhindered by the physical demands a child places.
At the very least, I can state your position.
I am not afraid of your sophistry. I can admit what you say, I understand what you say, and can recapitulate it.
And the position is barbaric.
How we doin?
Having sex is participating in the capacity to create life. That is the fundamental purpose of sex, biologically speaking. There are many ways to attain pleasure or to feel loved, but none of the other ways can possibly end up directly procreating a new human being.Servant31:
I respectfully disagree.
Consent to sex is consent to sex. It is not consent to pregnancy, unless one practices “being open to life”, which I can assure you, most Catholics, much less most humans, do not practice.
