Issues other than abortion

[Vonsalza]

If I’m understanding you correctly, choice is a lesser of two evils.

It is better than being bodily enslaved.

 

[MamaJewel]

Just make the laws include unborn humans and problem solved.

Is it really that simple?

Once the court establishes that the unborn human has the very same rights as the mother, it creates such conflict that it becomes a wicked problem.

Will the woman be forced to eat specific foods, abstain from other foods, take certain vitamins, and avoid medicines that will benefit her body because of potential harm to the fetus? Will she now be forced to undergo certain beneficial medical procedures and be denied other beneficial medical procedures because of the potential harm to the fetus within her?

Will she be told how many hours of sleep she must have each night, and that she must change her lifestyle to avoid specific stressors because of potential harm to the fetus? Because the fetus with the legal protections you describe will have just as many rights to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, autonomy, education, etc. as the woman who is carrying it does.

In other words, whose rights will granted in this matter? If there is conflict, and there will be conflict, how will the court rule? Will the woman be relegated to incubator status as the fetus uses her body directly for its benefit? Or will the woman have the right to be free from intrusion on her body if she doesn’t want to be pregnant?

What about parental immunity from a legal standpoint? Will a child or the other parent or the state now be able to sue the formerly pregnant woman for any actions, or lack thereof, that the child or his/her representatives believed resulted in harm during the pregnancy/labor/birth?

Will a formerly pregnant woman be able to sue her former fetus and his/her other parent or the state for damages she obtained due to the pregnancy/labor/birth and post-partum processes?

Give the unborn human the absolute same rights as the pregnant woman carrying it and both will have the right to sue each other, barring you suspend the rights of one or both parties.

Sorry, but such a law is not that simple.

 

[Elf01]

Sure! What you’re missing here is that the only way to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is abortion.

If you’re wanting to terminate someone’s dependency upon you, you can. There are plenty of foster homes full of kids whose parents don’t give a rip. There are plenty of nursing homes full of parents whose kids don’t give a rip.

You’ve admitted to not opposing abortion pist viability when there are other options.

 

[Elf01]

Will the woman be forced to eat specific foods, abstain from other foods, take certain vitamins, and avoid medicines that will benefit her body because of potential harm to the fetus? Will she now be forced to undergo certain beneficial medical procedures and be denied other beneficial medical procedures because of the potential harm to the fetus within her?

That already happens with wanted unborn children. The doctor makesa judgement and acts in the best interest of both mother and baby. Seems that should be easy to apply to unwanted unborn children too.

If a pregnant woman is prepared to use her body to keep a fetus alive but is not overly concerned about the childs health should she be allowed to take thallomide for morning sickness.

For bodily automony not related to pregnancy should any drugs be illegal?

 

[MamaJewel]

Will the woman be forced to eat specific foods, abstain from other foods, take certain vitamins, and avoid medicines that will benefit her body because of potential harm to the fetus? Will she now be forced to undergo certain beneficial medical procedures and be denied other beneficial medical procedures because of the potential harm to the fetus within her?

Umm, the doctor does not make a judgement and act in the best interest of both mother and baby without the informed consent of the (competent) pregnant mother. So in situations of maternal-fetal conflict, a fetus having the same equal rights as the mother becomes very problematic since somebodies rights are going to get violated. The pro-life community expects the mother forfeit her rights for the sake of the pregnancy. The pro-choice community says let the mother decide since it her body that is benefiting the fetus. The pro-aborts say forfeit the pregnancy and forget a woman’s right to carry a fetus.

As far as medications are concerned, thalidomide for morning sickness, no. I can’t say if doctors ever give this medication to pregnant women with multiple myeloma, but I would think that it is avoided because it is on the FDA’s restricted distribution list. And anybody born with birth defects due to mom taking it with an Rx to treat for blood related cancers while pregnant would have a significant lawsuit because it is restricted by the FDA.

But, if the fetus were granted equal rights to the pregnant woman carrying it, court cases could (and would) arise over ordinary medications the woman took while pregnant (and maybe even before pregnancy). A doctor could kiss good-bye prescribing any medication for off-label use to a pregnant woman out of fear from potential lawsuits by the child’s legal representatives.

As far as bodily autonomy and illegal or legal drugs are concerned, bodily autonomy is weighed with the common good. People do argue that the government does not have the right to make drug use illegal or require that some medications be taken. We see this with current marijuana laws and vaccine laws in different states.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

So using a secular argument, why must women be forced to surrender their bodily autonomy in favor of the fetus?

Well technically abortion up until birth is illegal in most U.S. states, and countries in the world, so it is actually acceptable and seen as right and just in most areas of the world for women to “give up their bodily autonomy” to a well developed fetus that is capable of feeling pain. You and your raw power grab views are actually in the minority.

 

[Brendan_64]

All it means is that most of the posters on this forum can only focus on one political issue. Abortion.

If you started a thread titled “Any issue other than climate change” what do you reckon would become the topic of discussion on the thread? Climate change?

 

[laylow]

http://www.theworldcounts.com/count...ics/how_many_people_die_from_hunger_each_year

https://www.poverty.com

World Child Hunger Facts - World Hunger Education - World Hunger News

The facts are, children are hungry in Africa. Childhood hunger & poor nutrition remains endemic; some starve & die. Others may be stunted & risk illness.

www.worldhunger.org

 

[LiveSkype]

Yeah, that’s pretty much the gist.

This argument doesn’t exist to the exclusion of others, but that is my over-arching point.

I figured as much. I understand that there are people who have that viewpoint, and a big part that I feel that is MISSING from people is that there are going to be women who are that determined to get an abortion and aren’t going to regret it one little bit. This isn’t every case of an unwanted pregnancy, as there are many cases that a woman ends up choosing to get an abortion because she is scared and doesn’t know what to do. Crisis Pregnancy Centers are there for the latter, as the former tend to want to shut them down, calling them “fake clinics”.

Another thing that I wish more people who are pro-life would recognize is mental health. For example, when Robert Lewis Dear, Jr. shot up the Planned Parenthood facility in Colorado Springs in November 2015, this is what of Steven Ertelt wrote:

As soon as details came to light about the mental health status of alleged Planned Parenthood shooter Robert Lewis Dear, pro-life advocates defending themselves against false accusations that Dear somehow was a pro-life activist motivated by videos Planned Parenthood selling aborted baby parts knew that the truth was far different. They understood that Dear is no more than a mentally troubled human being with a long criminal record who friends and family described as an incoherent rambler.
Source

To me, what disappoints me is that a community who claims to be “for life” is willing to kick someone who has the shared view against abortion to the curb because he is mentally ill. I understand that they wanted to distance themselves from someone who shot and killed three people—including a police officer—but there are other people who are delusional who also feel very strongly about this issue, and they will often resort to violence because they are in a manic. I know they aren’t necessarily equipped to deal with such people, but maybe the pro-life community could reach out to the mentally-ill in a way that is non-violent and constructive to both causes.

 

[goout]

Where is the right to have one’s body intact (body systems, vitamins, minerals, nutrients, etc) and free from the direct use of another human being a farce?

With pregnancy, we’re not talking going out to work at a job to support someone. We’re talking about one living being directly taking the oxygen out of the blood and calcium out of the bones of another. Not to mention the additional compensation required of maternal body systems, just so the pregnant woman can stay alive.

Who takes from who in a pregnancy? Who gives use of their body and gets nothing in return from an anatomical and physiological point of view? The pregnant woman. The fetus gets total benefit of the woman’s body to the risk of her life and health.

So I want to ask you again, what person has the right to demand the use of another person’s body for his/her own direct benefit?

My argument is not a farce.

You make a claim to absolute bodily autonomy. That is a claim, not a moral or logical argument.

You say:
“I have a right bodily autonomy at the expense of another human being’s right to live”.
Ok, how do you justify that claim? It’s a serious claim.
Such a claim, in a sane society, should have some underpinnings. It’s not enough to make a claim to power, based on your power to claim it. That’s not a reasoned position.
What is the foundation of your claim?

I claim that an unborn child is demonstrably a unique human being (and if we are both Christian, I will add “directly created by God to flourish”.)
The unborn child has a human nature. What is in it’s human nature? To grow with the help of it’s mother and others, to natural death. That is the basis of the child’s right to live:
It is human, with human nature, and inseparable from that nature is the right to grow within it’s nature as a human being. And an inseparable part of that nature is to be carried by a mother.

I make a claim that appeals to something other than a naked claim to the power of claim making.
Your position is circular until you can demonstrate the foundation and logic that support it.
Your position is “I can do what I want at the expense of other people, because I can”.
That “reasoning” is not acceptable in any other arena, unless we are claiming dictatorship for everyone.

 

[MamaJewel]

You make a claim to absolute bodily autonomy. That is a claim, not a moral or logical argument.

You say:
“I have a right bodily autonomy at the expense of another human being’s right to live”.
Ok, how do you justify that claim? It’s a serious claim.
Such a claim, in a sane society, should have some underpinnings. It’s not enough to make a claim to power, based on your power to claim it. That’s not a reasoned position.
What is the foundation of your claim?

The claim is very logical. I have the right to my bodily autonomy because it is inseparable from my right to life when there is another living being within my body hiding under the radar of my immune system, literally using my oxygen, calcium, iron, etc. as well as burdening my bodily systems to the extent that if those systems can’t/don’t compensate, I die!

Pregnancy may be natural, but it’s very dangerous, and often debilitating or deadly for women. For example, it’s quite natural for women to develop obstetrical fistulas, uterine prolapse, or rectal prolapse as a result of vaginal childbirth. Hey, just walk around leaking urine or feces out of your girl bits. No problem, it’s natural because you gave birth!

So there, I have the right to determine what happens with my body given the weight of a life threatening/altering event such as pregnancy. It’s a common sense, logical conclusion and not some claim of power because I’m being a bully-jerk. I’m not saying I have the right to murder somebody on a whim. Rather, I have the right to determine what is best for my body concerning pregnancy/ reproduction so I can maintain and protect my right to life. Big difference.

My right to bodily autonomy gave me the right to practice NFP, have the number of pregnancies I saw fit to have, direct those pregnancies in the way I thought was best for me as a person, and bring 8 living, human people onto the face of this earth. It’s my body at direct risk when being utilized to maintain a pregnancy, so it’s my choice to continue or terminate that pregnancy from the human rights point of view.

And please don’t try to appeal to me on the basis of motherhood and human nature. It’s human nature that a woman can conceive 96 hours out of a cycle. Where as men whose bits are working correctly are fertile 24/7 once their testicles begin producing sperm. It should be human nature to men who are fertile all the time to avoid creating a pregnancy with a woman who will possibly the pregnancy and his progeny. How is that for human nature?

 

[goout]

goout:

You make a claim to absolute bodily autonomy. That is a claim, not a moral or logical argument.

You say:
“I have a right bodily autonomy at the expense of another human being’s right to live”.
Ok, how do you justify that claim? It’s a serious claim.
Such a claim, in a sane society, should have some underpinnings. It’s not enough to make a claim to power, based on your power to claim it. That’s not a reasoned position.
What is the foundation of your claim?

The claim is very logical. I have the right to my bodily autonomy because it is inseparable from my right to life

You make an unfounded claim in that sentence. Can you move from making an founded claim, to giving good reason why your right to absolute bodily autonomy is inseparable from your right to life?

when there is another living being within my body hiding under the radar of my immune system, literally using my oxygen, calcium, iron, etc. as well as burdening my bodily systems to the extent that if those systems can’t/don’t compensate, I die!

[/QUOTE]
That’s not foundation. You are claiming childbirth is a disease, and the child is a pathogen or aggressor.
But that’s false.
What is the foundation for your claim to absolute bodily autonomy, even to the right to kill a child?
(you have the license to make such a claim, but you ought to desire to have a reasonable claim, right? I call the claim a farce, you say it’s logical to kill a child for your own bodily autonomy. Why is it not immoral and not bad reasoning? )

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Will the woman be forced to eat specific foods, abstain from other foods, take certain vitamins, and avoid medicines that will benefit her body because of potential harm to the fetus? Will she now be forced to undergo certain beneficial medical procedures and be denied other beneficial medical procedures because of the potential harm to the fetus within her?

This kind of happens already and it is not that big of a deal. I’m sure reasonable boundaries can be established and replacements used. It is better than the alternative.

 

[MamaJewel]

Can you move from making an founded claim, to giving good reason why your right to absolute bodily autonomy is inseparable from your right to life?

Where did I claim that childbirth is a disease? I stated matter of fact that pregnancy is a natural process that is dangerous, often debilitating, or deadly for women.

I do equate my right to autonomy of my body to my right to life? Read what I wrote.
I’ll say this, I’m lucky to be alive. If it wasn’t for medical interventions for most of my pregnancies/labor/deliveries, I would be dead! My intact, autonomous body = the foundation of my right to life. If I’m going into hypovolemic shock and still bleeding, well, I don’t have much life left in me. Guess my right to life doesn’t matter much then, huh?

And speaking logically, the human being in the mother’s womb isn’t a child (per law). We can’t claim the fetus as a legal dependent on our taxes, we can’t give them a legal name before birth because there is no mechanism for it, we can’t purchase Knights of Columbus policies for them until after they’re born… That unique fetus can’t even get a Kof C life insurance policy in utero. Why not, GoOut, if it is a person???

I’ve answered you. So please answer me.

How is the right to have one’s body intact (body systems, oxygen on hemoglobin, calcium in bones, iron stores, etc) and free from the direct use of another human being a farce?

Who takes from who in a pregnancy?

Who must provide use of her body during pregnancy and get nothing in return anatomically and physiologically?

Who gets the total benefit of the woman’s body to the risk of the woman’s life/health?

Whose body systems must compensate for the maintenance of the fetus or she will die?

From a legal perspective, when does one human being have the right to dictate the direct benefit (use) of another human being’s body for his/her total maintenance of life, especially when that human being’s presence is a direct threat to the person providing the direct maintenance?

I get the moral theology of natural moral law. I really do.
But I’m sorry that pregnancy is truly a serious threat to a woman’s health and life. The process of pregnancy is aggressive and if it weren’t for medical care, many women would die or be permanently maimed due to childbirth.

 

[MamaJewel]

This kind of happens already and it is not that big of a deal. I’m sure reasonable boundaries can be established and replacements used. It is better than the alternative

From your POV it’s acceptable and not a big deal.
From mine, it is a big deal. Women aren’t incubators.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

The way things now are fine except for abortion so those changes you were talking about might not be necessary.

 

[goout]

goout:

Can you move from making an founded claim, to giving good reason why your right to absolute bodily autonomy is inseparable from your right to life?

Where did I claim that childbirth is a disease?

Right here:

there is another living being within my body hiding under the radar of my immune system, literally using my oxygen, calcium, iron, etc. as well as burdening my bodily systems to the extent that if those systems can’t/don’t compensate, I die!

Pregnancy may be natural, but it’s very dangerous, and often debilitating or deadly for women. For example, it’s quite natural for women to develop obstetrical fistulas, uterine prolapse, or rectal prolapse as a result of vaginal childbirth. Hey, just walk around leaking urine or feces out of your girl bits. No problem, it’s natural because you gave birth!

I stated matter of fact that pregnancy is a natural process that is dangerous, often debilitating, or deadly for women.

You went beyond that. You listed the adverse health consequences of nurturing a child, without thinking of the child! As if the child is soul-less tumor.

You propose the nurturing of a new life as inherently threatening to the life and well being of a woman, in graphic and excessive detail. Your words. That’s what diseases are, that’s what aggressors do. Are you backing away from the claim that an unborn child is an inherent threat to the life of a mother? ( I hope so)

The view that an unborn child is an un-natural competitor or adversary to the mother is false. Patently false. It’s an a absurd claim, because the only way to have life and health…is to be nurtured in the womb. Let that sink in: you are making a claim that is entirely circular.

You are claiming the right to absolute bodily autonomy at the expense of a human life, for a living human being who was formed in a womb.

Your claim over the life of another has no foundation.
You make a claim to power by your power to claim. That’s also known as brute force, and I can hardly think you wish a world where brute force rules. I mean, you at least want a world where you own bodily autonomy rules, right?

What happens to your absolute bodily autonomy claim when someone else claims you have none?

 

[goout]

And speaking logically, the human being in the mother’s womb isn’t a child (per law). We can’t claim the fetus as a legal dependent on our taxes, we can’t give them a legal name before birth because there is no mechanism for it, we can’t purchase Knights of Columbus policies for them until after they’re born… That unique fetus can’t even get a Kof C life insurance policy in utero. Why not, GoOut, if it is a person???

Logically speaking means you will back this claim up with logic, rather than revert to civil law. Citing parts of civil law is not reasoning, it’s just citing civil law. Civil law may or may not be moral.
Remember, in American history, some of our own people were only given 3/5ths human rights. Remember that? (no, you don’t, and because you don’t, you can tolerate your own position).

Remember, in Germany at one time, anyone could be deemed less than human for any reason whatsoever, because the German dictator must have his autonomy.

So evidently you hold those laws to be moral, because they are laws.
More circular reasoning.

 

[LiveSkype]

Well, I have brought up other topics that tie into this:

Sadly, most politicians who support restricting access to abortion also support cutting Medicaid: not just because of restricting access to abortion/birth control, but also because they want people to work! Trust me, there are many disabled people out there who have a very strong work ethic.
Sadly, the Social Security laws make it hard for people with disabilities receiving SSI to be able to save up money in order live independently WITHOUT losing Medicaid. Although the Achieving a Better Life Experience (ABLE) Act of 2014 DOES allow an individual to create a special tax-free savings account that will not jeopardize receiving SSI/SNAP/Medicaid, there are restrictions there.
But since they deal with things in the long-term, they often get ignored.
My solution? Get Special Olympics to the front of the March for Life, as the KofC is one of their BIGGEST supporters. It gets the faces of a marginalized (and often aborted) community OUT THERE for the rest of the Pro-life community to see.

Another thing that I wish more people who are pro-life would recognize is mental health. For example, when Robert Lewis Dear, Jr. shot up the Planned Parenthood facility in Colorado Springs in November 2015, this is what of Steven Ertelt wrote:

As soon as details came to light about the mental health status of alleged Planned Parenthood shooter Robert Lewis Dear, pro-life advocates defending themselves against false accusations that Dear somehow was a pro-life activist motivated by videos Planned Parenthood selling aborted baby parts knew that the truth was far different. They understood that Dear is no more than a mentally troubled human being with a long criminal record who friends and family described as an incoherent rambler.
Source

But it seems like I’m being ignored here, as I would have liked these posts to bring about more dialogue about these topics on this very forum thread. (Sigh…) It seems like I’m being ignored here.

 

[goout]

But it seems like I’m being ignored here, as I would have liked these posts to bring about more dialogue about these topics on this very forum thread. (Sigh…) It seems like I’m being ignored here.

There’s a simple way to do that by taking your post and starting a thread.
Start a thread where a controversial issue is not begged in the title. The social justice subforum is perfect. It’s a worthwhile discussion.
And the good part of that is, you won’t have to debate whether human life is even worth living with a bunch of people, you can talk about flourishing, as it should be.