Issues other than abortion

[Sbee0]

What is sound is that the lack of personhood of a fetus does not override the established personhood of its mother.

Not sound at all if nobody can convincingly prove that a fetus is not a person, which seems to be the case.

How odd.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Sbee0:

In the mother, and dependent on the mother, but a completely separate life.

If she breathes for it, eats for it and it occupies her insides, then it’s part of the mother.

Sure, it’s genetically different, like a tumor might be. But it’s indubitably part of her.

If it wasn’t, just remove it and do what you wish with it.

Nope.

Do you have an argument there?

Also I’m pretty certain that that someone on life support, or a breathing machine, or a heart bypass machine, and so on isn’t part of that machine.

Their life, at that point, no longer requires the bodily sacrifice of another.

Swing and a miss…

 

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

Vonsalza:

Sbee0:

In the mother, and dependent on the mother, but a completely separate life.

If she breathes for it, eats for it and it occupies her insides, then it’s part of the mother.

Sure, it’s genetically different, like a tumor might be. But it’s indubitably part of her.

If it wasn’t, just remove it and do what you wish with it.

Nope.

Do you have an argument there?

Also I’m pretty certain that that someone on life support, or a breathing machine, or a heart bypass machine, and so on isn’t part of that machine.

Their life, at that point, no longer requires the bodily sacrifice of another.

And thus the goalposts move again.

Swing and a miss…

Nope. Carry on.

 

[Sbee0]

A fetus has some right to life because the purpose of a fetus is to develop into a fully functional person.

I wonder why it seems to be so difficult for pro choicers to even come close to answering my challenge to convince me with proof that a human being and human person are not the same.

They love to use the personhood argument in favor of abortion but they sure aren’t very good at backing it up.

 

[Sbee0]

Some might try to pass viability as a reason why the fetus is not a human. The fetus, if it cannot survive outside of the womb, is therefore not a human deserving human rights. Again, there are multiple issues with this statement. First of all, a person does not cease to be a person simply by moving from place to place or by being in different periods of time. Take this example: A fetus is able to live apart from its mother in an incubator. Take away the incubator, however, and the child will not survive. 2,000 years ago, there were no incubators. But wouldn’t we be right in saying that regardless of the presence of incubators that the fetus is nonetheless a human person? All in all, viability is not the universal mark of personhood. Just some food for thought.

Viability is a horrendous argument used by pro choicers to argue their side. Even worse than the personhood one and that’s really bad too.

Anyone who can think logically would know why. It’s not rocket science.

 

[Vonsalza]

I wonder why it seems to be so difficult for pro choicers to even come close to answering my challenge to convince me with proof…

If you’re actually looking for an answer to this (and you probably aren’t), it’s because proof is not subjective.

Even more simplified:
You’re capable of being wrong and not admitting it.

 

[Sbee0]

I like the irony of a thread on issues other than abortion going on for hundreds of post about abortion. But I guess that is what you get when non-Catholics jump on a Catholic board and argue for something so antithetical to the faith. The whole argument is useless and backwards. It is so far off it should be in apologetics where the error that is in the beginning could be better addressed.

From experience, it’s the thought that people of faith somehow can’t think objectively and for themselves when their beliefs are challenged. They engage with us and think it will be easy to stump us. It’s the caricature of religious people, and I’ve talked about this before.

Of course they are very surprised when they are proven wrong and it’s them who can’t go away from their talking points.

 

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

I wonder why it seems to be so difficult for pro choicers to even come close to answering my challenge to convince me with proof…

If you’re actually looking for an answer to this (and you probably aren’t), it’s because proof is not subjective.

Even more simplified:
You’re capable of being wrong and not admitting it.

It’s ok, you can admit that you have no proof. Nothing wrong with that.

And you would be correct of course. There is none. That’s my point.

 

[Vonsalza]

From experience, it’s the thought that people of faith somehow can’t think objectively and for themselves when their beliefs are challenged. They engage with us and think it will be easy to stump us. It’s the caricature of religious people, and I’ve talked about this before.

Please don’t poison the well. It just kills rational discourse and nothing else. It reinforces the blind “Red vs Blue” tribalism that so many of us simultaneously lament and participate in.

Of course they are very surprised when they are proven wrong and it’s them who can’t go away from their talking points.

The reason for that is because your counters to our arguments are not convincing. That’s honestly it, no “gotcha” intended.

It’s ok, you can admit that you have no proof. Nothing wrong with that.

And you would be correct of course. There is none. That’s my point.

Hey, I’m honestly still waiting for a decent explanation why a woman can be forced to do something with her body against her will.

If we want to talk about slavery, that’s a pretty good example. By forcing a woman to have a baby against her will, you’re taking a human being with bodily autonomy and self determination and violating both of those things.

Honestly, could you - or anyone - please tell me why that objection isn’t a valid one? Especially with something as life-altering and dangerous as child-birth (especially in Texas and a few other states where maternal mortality is actually rising )

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.6c8964cb529e

Why does anyone has a right to force a woman to do that?

From where I stand, no one does but the woman herself. Please rebut that. Seriously.

 

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

From experience, it’s the thought that people of faith somehow can’t think objectively and for themselves when their beliefs are challenged. They engage with us and think it will be easy to stump us. It’s the caricature of religious people, and I’ve talked about this before.

Please don’t poison the well. It just kills rational discourse and nothing else. It reinforces the blind “Red vs Blue” tribalism that so many of us simultaneously lament and participate in.

This wasn’t a reference to you or this conversation. Or at least wasn’t intended to be. The caricature of religious people is real. And tiresome honestly.

The reason for that is because your counters to our arguments are not convincing. That’s honestly it, no “gotcha” intended.

I’m actually not trying to convince anyone of anything. Just pointing out the many logical fallacies often used in these conversations.

(clipped for space)

Hey, I’m honestly still waiting for a decent explanation why a woman can be forced to do something with her body against her will.

If we want to talk about slavery, that’s a pretty good example. By forcing a woman to have a baby against her will, you’re taking a human being with bodily autonomy and self determination and violating both of those things.

Honestly, could you - or anyone - please tell me why that objection isn’t a valid one? Especially with something as life-altering and dangerous as child-birth (especially in Texas and a few other states where maternal mortality is actually rising )

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.6c8964cb529e

Why does anyone has a right to force a woman to do that?

I would say to blame that solely on childbirth and not their health care is myopic. Health care has a very long way to go in this country to get where it needs to be as you know. Of course there are also plenty of articles and stats on the risks of abortion, and many cases deadly risks. It is not usually the simple and “happy” procedure you’d see in PP and NARAL propaganda. Not to mention the maternal risks of future pregnancies and complications after an incurred abortion, also not to mention the mental health impact after the procedure. Federal law does not require states to report data on abortion related deaths and many states do not do so. So there is no factual basis to the claim that childbirth is more risky than abortion.

Like I said above. Abortion is nothing more than a symptom of society’s failure to support women who are in need and who are desperate. This must be corrected. I’m very glad our Church is playing her part to do so.

 

[Elf01]

From where I stand, no one does but the woman herself. Please rebut that. Seriously.

Sure.

The conjoined twin in your example made their wish known.

That’s an example of agency.

You’ve acknowledged that the right to bodily autonomy is not absolute. The issue just seems to be the ability of the other body involved to express their wishes.

You didn’t answer about my conjoined twins where both would live if they waited 9 months and one would die if separated now. The one who will live wants an immediate separation, and the one who will die is unable to express their wishes.

Somehow I doubt you believe the separating is fine in that situation. If you don’t what’s the difference when the body that cannot express their wishes has not been born?

 

[Vonsalza]

I would say to blame that solely on childbirth and not their health care is myopic.

I’m not doing that. I’m saying it’s hazardous. And it is, even if the pregnancy goes great. My wife’s had 3. My mom had 7. They’ll both emphatically agree that each one damages you a little more.

My wife in particular - I’m a pretty funny guy at times (believe it or not). She’s told me on countless occasions over the years about not making her laugh because each child we had damaged her ability to hold her pee in.

Point being, having a child is not a consequence-free zone for the woman. And the consequences are lasting.

The question still stands - Who are we to remove her self-determination and bodily autonomy on this issue and force her to do something with her body for 9 months that she doesn’t want to do?

What gives me the right to make my wife, or a woman I don’t even know, do that? To risk certain peril to themselves because I say so?

Like I said above. Abortion is nothing more than a symptom of society’s failure to support women who are in need and who are desperate. This must be corrected.

On your side 100%. But given my side’s extremely valid concerns, it’s seems that the best logical course is to make abortion a woman’s personal decision and then we all work together to institutionally make the decision to abort as rare as we can.

 

[Vonsalza]

You’ve acknowledged that the right to bodily autonomy is not absolute.

Sure. The first and most obvious limitation is when your bodily autonomy is exercised to limit the bodily autonomy of another person.

The issue just seems to be the ability of the other body involved to express their wishes.

Gently, fetuses don’t have wishes. They don’t have the mental capacity to wish. The don’t know what a wish is. The closest thing they experience to desire is the apparent desire for food after their birth. Even their breathing, sleeping, and eliminating functions are very arguably on “auto-pilot” for at least the first little while after they come into the world.

As such, any claim to speak for them simply isn’t a rational one.

 

[YourNameHere]

So we ignore everything else? We cannot be strong willed about more than just one moral issue?

 

[HopkinsReb]

So we ignore everything else? We cannot be strong willed about more than just one moral issue?

I have never defended nor advocated ignoring all other moral issues.

But if you are walking down the street and have to choose between stopping a murder or stopping a purse-snatching, which do you choose?

I advocate prioritizing stopping the mass slaughter of babies without abandoning other important concerns, such as care for the poor.

 

[Elf01]

The first and most obvious limitation is when your bodily autonomy is exercised to limit the bodily autonomy of another person.

You get it. That’s exactly what abortion does in a pro life world view.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

The first and most obvious limitation is when your bodily autonomy is exercised to limit the bodily autonomy of another person.

You get it. That’s exactly what abortion does in a pro life world view.

…factually, scientifically, any rational way you want to look at it…

A fetus does not have bodily autonomy. It’s practically the most perfect example of a human lacking bodily autonomy.

 

[YourNameHere]

I am not trying to be difficult.
I am just trying to point out that we CAN and MUST concentrate on other moral issues of the day.
We can walk and chew gum at the same time.

 

[Vonsalza]

I advocate prioritizing stopping the mass slaughter of babies without abandoning other important concerns, such as care for the poor.

Me too!

Per @ErikaSpirit16

• free medical care during pregnancy, delivery, and until the child is 18.

• guaranteed leave for 6 months after having a baby. Your job is guaranteed.

• free pre-school day care

• subsidy for each child paid each month (Canada, for example, pays $6,500 a year—in monthly installments—until age 6; then it’s $5,500 until age 18)

and other things too—in other words, remove the financial disadvantage to having children. Virtually all other developed countries do this. And guess what? Their abortion rate is about 1/3 less than in the US.

 

[HopkinsReb]

All other developed countries have stricter abortion laws than the US, too. The only nations with comparable laws are North Korea, Singapore, and China.