How would we enforce new abortion laws?

[NM505StKate]

Not just that. They are biologically dependent on the mother’s body for survival. A newborn can be kept alive by anyone who is willing to provide the necessary care. That is qualitatively different from the “parasitic” relationship of the zygote / fetus with the mother. (I know that the word “parasite” rubs some people the wrong way, but I did not call the fetus a parasite, only described its relationship with the mother as “parasitical” and NOT “symbiotic”. )

Also it is good to remember that newborns actually acquire all sorts of rights, that are not afforded to the fetus, even if the birth is only one day away. One of these rights is the right to inherit. Stillborn children cannot inherit. Newborns are considered not just human beings, but also citizens of the state.

By the way, if the mother happens to be unable/unwilling to care for a two days old child, there is the option to give it up for adoption. You cannot give up a fetus for adoption.

:clapping::clapping:

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Neither can the hungry, the thirsty, the disabled, the mentally handicapped, generally speaking the powerless cannot live apart from others.

Don’t you understand the qualitative difference between getting help from anyone on the outside and the parasitic drawing on the mother’s bodily resources? No one is entitled to someone else’s bodily resources. If someone would die if you did not donate your blood, the refusal would not be a criminal act. As a matter of fact, you retain the ownership of your body even past death. Your body cannot be cut up for transplant even if the organs would be necessary for someone else’s survival unless you give prior permission and declare yourself to be an organ donor. And in these cases we talk about real human beings and not just a clump of cells.

I don’t understand this obsession with abortions. The majority of the impregnated eggs fails to imbed in the uterus wall, and gets “flushed” out with the menstrual fluid. No one cares and rightfully so.

 

[NM505StKate]

NM505StKate. You said (emphasis mine) . . . .

Are you concerned that a person may die with an abortion?

Are there any “safe” abortions with “one dead” and “one wounded”?

Yes because going to Planned Parenthood to get an abortion in a safe environment is better than some back alley which would happen if abortion would be illegal.

 

[NM505StKate]

Don’t you understand the qualitative difference between getting help from anyone on the outside and the parasitic drawing on the mother’s bodily resources? No one is entitled to someone else’s bodily resources. If someone would die if you did not donate your blood, the refusal would not be a criminal act. As a matter of fact, you retain the ownership of your body even past death. Your body cannot be cut up for transplant even if the organs would be necessary for someone else’s survival unless you give prior permission and declare yourself to be an organ donor. And in these cases we talk about real human beings and not just a clump of cells.

I don’t understand this obsession with abortions. The majority of the impregnated eggs fails to imbed in the uterus wall, and gets “flushed” out with the menstrual fluid. No one cares and rightfully so.

I totally forgot about when a fertilized egg doesn’t imbed, thank you.

 

[Elf01]

There is a difference between somebody running me over on purpose (or as a result of negligence) or completely accidentally. I would compare the first scenarios to abortion, and the last to a failure to implant.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Yes because going to Planned Parenthood to get an abortion in a safe environment is better than some back alley which would happen if abortion would be illegal.

Why should murder be safe?

 

[PRmerger]

There is a difference between somebody running me over on purpose (or as a result of negligence) or completely accidentally. I would compare the first scenarios to abortion, and the last to a failure to implant.

Yes. Good analogy.

 

[PRmerger]

I totally forgot about when a fertilized egg doesn’t imbed, thank you.

I’m sure you would agree, Kate, that just because some elderly people die naturally of old age, that doesn’t mean that it gives us permission to kill any elderly person that we choose, right?

 

[goout]

Don’t you understand the qualitative difference between getting help from anyone on the outside and the parasitic drawing on the mother’s bodily resources? No one is entitled to someone else’s bodily resources. If someone would die if you did not donate your blood, the refusal would not be a criminal act. As a matter of fact, you retain the ownership of your body even past death. Your body cannot be cut up for transplant even if the organs would be necessary for someone else’s survival unless you give prior permission and declare yourself to be an organ donor. And in these cases we talk about real human beings and not just a clump of cells.

I don’t understand this obsession with abortions. The majority of the impregnated eggs fails to imbed in the uterus wall, and gets “flushed” out with the menstrual fluid. No one cares and rightfully so.

Your morality is bankrupt. There is no nice way to say it.
It subjects human beings to the perceived inconvenience of others.
The same dead-end logic you use above has been used to justify every genocide and murder perpetrated. Your point of view is tyrannical and terrifying, and needs to be shouted into the trash-bin of irrelevancy.

It boils down to “because you are a burden to me, your right to live is subject to my choice.”
“Because the Jews are taking our resources, they do not deserve to live.”
“Because Stephen Hawking depends entirely on others, he does not deserve to live”.
“Because the indigenous peoples need our assistance find food after we have destroyed their environment, they do not deserve to live”.

You have a right to your opinion, and I have a right to point out your moral bankruptcy.

 

[PRmerger]

Your morality is bankrupt. There is no nice way to say it.
It subjects human beings to the perceived inconvenience of others.
The same dead-end logic you use above has been used to justify every genocide and murder perpetrated. Your point of view is tyrannical and terrifying, and needs to be shouted into the trash-bin of irrelevancy.

It boils down to “because you are a burden to me, your right to live is subject to my choice.”
“Because the Jews are taking our resources, they do not deserve to live.”
“Because Stephen Hawking depends entirely on others, he does not deserve to live”.
“Because the indigenous peoples need our assistance find food after we have destroyed their environment, they do not deserve to live”.

You have a right to your opinion, and I have a right to point out your moral bankruptcy.

Indeed.

And what, exactly, about being dependent upon another’s body makes this person’s life expendable?

The logical conclusion would be that it’s totally permissible for a 2 month old infant to be killed if he’s dependent upon the mother for breastfeeding, and she decides she wants bodily autonomy and does not wish to feed him anymore.

NB: there is no need to appeal to “well, he can have formula!” Formula is not available in all corners of the world, and some infants by by wholly dependent upon a woman’s body in order to live.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

There is a difference between somebody running me over on purpose (or as a result of negligence) or completely accidentally. I would compare the first scenarios to abortion, and the last to a failure to implant.

You mean that if there is an accident, it is A-OK? There was no volition involved, so there is no one to blame, and therefore there is no reason to be upset? Because that is what you said.

Of course the analogy fails. The zygote, which is flushed out by the menstrual fluid cannot be equated to an actual human being. At best it can be considered a human tissue.

 

[goout]

You mean that if there is an accident, it is A-OK?

What kind of vague language is “A_OK”? What does that mean in moral evaluation???
What are you attempting to ask?

There was no volition involved, so there is no one to blame, and therefore there is no reason to be upset? Because that is what you said.

Here you equate a movement of the will, with culpability, with emotional consequences.
geez…
Since we are talking about things from a Catholic perspective, here’s some basic study:
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm

Of course the analogy fails. The zygote, which is flushed out by the menstrual fluid cannot be equated to an actual human being. At best it can be considered a human tissue.

It cannot? Based on what? Your opinion?
We are talking about whether or not a human being is actually a human being, and we have your opinion as the arbiter of the moral equation?
Not exactly reassuring.
On the one hand you admit it’s “human”, and on the other hand it’s not a human being.
ok…

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Your morality is bankrupt. There is no nice way to say it.

You are welcome to say whatever you want.

I suggest that you answer the exact points I made, instead of making irrelevant analogies. * Should it be a criminal act to withhold a blood or plasma donation, just because someone’s life is dependent on it? * Should one be forced to give up a kidney to save someone else? * Should one be forced to donate a pound of flesh to save someone from starvation? * Should we cut up a recently deceased for organ transplants?

It subjects human beings to the perceived inconvenience of others.

And, of course a zygote is NOT a human being.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

On the one hand you admit it’s “human”, and on the other hand it’s not a human being.

Yes, I am aware of the fundamental difference between human “being” and human “tissue”. It is not a rocket science.

 

[Elf01]

You mean that if there is an accident, it is A-OK? There was no volition involved, so there is no one to blame, and therefore there is no reason to be upset? Because that is what you said.

Of course the analogy fails. The zygote, which is flushed out by the menstrual fluid cannot be equated to an actual human being. At best it can be considered a human tissue.

There would be reason to be upset, but there is a difference between a natural or accidental death (failure to implant) and murder (deliberate abortion or taking a pill to prevent implantation).

I disagree about a zygote not being a human being.

 

[PRmerger]

I disagree about a zygote not being a human being.

Indeed.

Something doesn’t become human by getting bigger or older.

Either it’s human from the very beginning, or it’s never been human.

 

[goout]

Indeed.

Something doesn’t become human by getting bigger or older.

Either it’s human from the very beginning, or it’s never been human.

Option 3 is,
the definition of humanity is subject to my opinion.

Which is not morally acceptable to any sane person.

 

[NM505StKate]

Indeed.

Something doesn’t become human by getting bigger or older.

Either it’s human from the very beginning, or it’s never been human.

False dichotomy here I think, A zygote is a zygote and a baby is a baby. I don’t remember who brought it up but since a fair majority of fertilized eggs don’t embed in the uterus and get passed out through menstrual blood. Where is the outrage over that?

 

[PRmerger]

False dichotomy here I think,

Really? You think there’s something between: it’s a human being or it’s not a human being?

What’s the other option?

I don’t remember who brought it up but since a fair majority of fertilized eggs don’t embed in the uterus and get passed out through menstrual blood. Where is the outrage over that?

Why should I be outraged? Did a human person kill another human person here?

 

[NM505StKate]

Really? You think there’s something between: it’s a human being or it’s not a human being?

What’s the other option?

How about proto-human?

Why should I be outraged? Did a human person kill another human person here?

Because you are outraged when it is a handful of cells in the first trimester. Almost like a double standard.