V
Vonsalza
Guest
The fetus has no agency. Thus there is no possibility for that.Vonsalza:
Then the fetus should also get a say since the women could be seen as being part of it.
- Status
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
By agency do you mean being able to make a decision or something else.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Correct. The ability to make decisions.Vonsalza:
By agency do you mean being able to make a decision or something else.
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
Is an infant able to make decisions? And if so how?
Last edited:
V
Vonsalza
Guest
No. But an infant is no longer a part of its mother’s body in the same way as a fetus, which was the context in which were discussing it.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
A fetus inside a woman’s body has no more agency than her liver does.
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
Have you proven why agency is the deciding factor?
Last edited:
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Again, barring anything else, Liberty is the default.Vonsalza:
Have you proven why agency is the deciding factor?
Momma has agency. She is free to exercise it.
Issues arise when you have a clash of agencies. The fetus has none.
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
Animals have agency but one could kill them.
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
Care to elaborate?
A
anon48198893
Guest
Government cannot solve rising out-of-wedlock birthrates, which only worsens poverty levels.
Poverty is caused, in part, by moral failings. Where are the churches? Often silent or focusing on the wrong social issues.
Poverty is caused, in part, by moral failings. Where are the churches? Often silent or focusing on the wrong social issues.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Sure, I’m game. It simply means that barring any reasonable constraints or conflicts of agency, you are free to act as you wish.Vonsalza:
Care to elaborate?
If you are made to follow a rule against your will, there should be an objective reason for it.
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
How is it the default is what I mean.
Last edited:
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Because it’s the closest behavioral equivalent to the philosophical and statistical defaults of null or undefined.
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
Would it be okay to harm something without agency?
Also animals do make decisions on their own and they are able to be killed.
And finally how and why does the default get to be the deciding factor?
Also animals do make decisions on their own and they are able to be killed.
And finally how and why does the default get to be the deciding factor?
Last edited:
V
Vonsalza
Guest
It’s okay to harm something without agency unless there’s some rule against it, which requires objective justification.
An animal is not physically part of that woman, which is a context we can’t lose sight of. And I think we’d agree that we have animal cruelty laws in most if not all states.
The default is what you have before you’ve proven something.
V
Victoria33
Guest
That’s still all you say, baby is part of the woman? No, I’m sorry, those are two different human beings, otherwise, there would not be states which charge double murder if you kill a pregnant woman.
So, all that is is your opinion.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
I agree that they’re two different humans, but the fetus is actually a part of the woman. It is inside her body, taking from her the things it needs for life.Vonsalza:
That’s still all you say, baby is part of the woman? No, I’m sorry, those are two different human beings, otherwise, there would not be states which charge double murder if you kill a pregnant woman.
So, all that is is your opinion.
As to foeticide, most states do indeed have laws on the books that charge you for killing a baby that a mother is choosing to carry.
That doesn’t negate the mother’s right to choose what to do with her body. This isn’t my opinion. Thank goodness, it’s the law of the land.
Last edited:
V
Victoria33
Guest
So because slavery was the law of the land, you say slavery is okay? Wow, what a deeply intellectual argument you make.
They are two different human beings, thank goodness there were people who saw slavery as a wrong.
Were the Nazis able to have their law of the land too?
They are two different human beings, you are making arbitrary judgements, if you use the law of the land as what is right, then so is the death penalty, so was slavery once upon a time.
I’ve come across debaters like you, repeating the same thing. Lack of compassion, it seems more that one is arguing because they like to act all self-righteous. Too, again, the racial component in this too is staggering, the way minority rates are much higher.
Also, whatever this “part of a woman’s body is” pretty much makes abortion at 9 months in the canal alright. That is ghastly and proponents of infanticide use the same kind of logic. Baby is out but the cord is still there, I guess it is still killable with such logic because indeed, it is still attached to the woman. How silly.
Foeticide too, seems rather strange to bring up, I"m not sure if the law books of those states say “in cases of foeticide…”
You watch everyone, pro-choicers will never answer back about slavery was once the law as well, expect a non-response or obfuscation but no answer.
Last edited:
V
Vonsalza
Guest
We’ve actually been over this, you and I.
Slavery was unjust because slaves were people. They were individuals.
A fetus is not. It is part of its mother.
No, I’m compassionate toward the pregnant woman who doesn’t want to have a baby. It’s a tragic situation where they always know they’re going to end a human life in order to preserve the quality of theirs and it’s never an easy or comfortable decision.
It’s why I’m such a huge advocate of birth control and education, which has dramatically crushed abortion rates since they’ve been tracked.
But if that ugly situation comes up, no one is going to force that reluctant mother to do anything.
She will make her own choice.
Higher for minorities per capita, but in nominal terms, most abortions are done by white women.
Compact chart I’ve found. Not super current (2005 cut-off)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Abortion is tragic. I agree completely.
Last edited:
- Status