- Status
F
fix
Guest
Not following. A baby is growing as intended. Fact of nature.
A person artificially tied to another has no right to the other person’s blood.
M
marymary1975
Guest
I am not, I am following your logic at 100%. Re-read your own posts again. Your answer above has absolutely nothing to do with what I asked or what we are discussing and again you keep avoiding answering. 1 and 2 are irrelevant here. The issue here is whether a woman has a right to kill her offspring concieved against her consent.
Amanda Berry had that child against her consent and was forced to keep the child against her consent. Now she is free therefore, she needs a remedy which under your logic is killing the child. Per your own words the child was an intrusion into her body - which for illegal.reasons happened " to get away" - and if the child does not have the mother’s consent to be born that child does not have the right to life. Per your own logic it would be inhumane to force Amanda Berry to keep that child with her. So again, under the light of your logic how do you resolve the situation of Amanda.Berry’s child who is unhumanly forced onto her.
M
marymary1975
Guest
No the life of the violinist is not innocent because he is commitng illegal acts. The government can’t protect illegal acts therefore it cannot mandate transfusions.
F
fix
Guest
The government is not determining what a woman may do with her uterus. The government is protecting an innocent person from murder.
F
fix
Guest
In both cases a child is growing as designed by nature. Why should an innocent child be murdered? What so called right is greater than the right not to be murdered?
M
manualman
Guest
Absurd. Total non-sequitor. There is a galaxy of difference in protecting the right of one human to live versus the freedoms of another and establishing the ‘right’ of the state to impregnate women at whim. In the first case, a human being exists. In the second, the state is asserting the right to create one. Utterly different issues.
But I sense we aren’t getting anywhere. You say it’s the same thing. We say it isn’t. You say it is… ad nauseum. I’m not sure how to put it that’s any clearer.
B
BlaineTog
Guest
Reformulation: once the government has the right to decide how a family chooses to protect its home, it can legislate any uses of it. Outlawing private ownership nuclear bombs is tantamount to having families raped and killed and their houses sold by the FBI.
L
lerapt78
Guest
Regarding autonomy:
There are cases in which a government can seek to withhold one’s right to personal autonomy. Several other examples off the top of my head would be:
The application of handcuffs during temporary detention
Straightjackets for psychiatric patients
Mandated blood draws for purposes of taking blood alcohol levels
The restriction of free passage for prisoners
Bed restraints for hospital patients who are confused
There are two primary reasons the state will allow for the supersedence of one’s personal autonomy, and those are for the safety of the individual, and for the safety of others. We consider this to be just and sometimes necessary, despite personal unhappiness or inconveniency. I can think of two instances in which one has had personal autonomy being (perhaps unfairly) revoked. From the above examples:
Example #1: There’s been a large street brawl involving a large amount of people. The police may come and put several individuals into handcuffs (temporarily) in order to regain control of the situation. Most likely, based upon individual and eyewitness testimonies, they will correctly place the perpetrators of the brawl into restraints. However, it often occurs that an innocent bystander, who had not actually *participated *in the event but who had the misfortune of being in the near vicinity also gets placed into restraints as a precaution until the issue can be sorted out. This would be a case of an innocent person being restrained under mitigating circumstances out of consideration for the safety of the officers and everyone around them.
Example 2: An elderly patient lying in a hospital bed becomes confused and keeps attempting to pull out a central venous line through which he is receiving antibiotics. Because of the danger of profuse bleeding from the site, the staff lawfully exercises the authority to cover his hands with mitts. The patient is innocent of wrongdoing, but his freedom of movement is limited nonetheless out of concern for his personal safety.
Variation of Example 2: An elderly patient lying in a hospital bed becomes confused and begins to lash out, not only at himself, but also toward the nurses and aids who are attempting to care for him. Although the patient is innocent of malice due to his diminished mental capacity, it is lawful to restrain him to the bed so that the hospital staff is protected from harm.
Therefore, although the right to control over one’s own body is generally considered to be an ensured right, there are instances in which the state can temporarily revoke it for the good of the individual and others. Obviously, in the case of abortion, the justification for the revocation of the woman’s personal right would be the overriding concern for the innocent life (the child that resulted from the rape). It is the protection of the innocent life is the primary concern, *not *the woman’s status as an innocent victim of rape, unfortunate as that may be. The justice done for *her *is to place her assailant in jail and give her the option of relinquishing responsibility once the child is born. The justice done for the innocent *child *is to attempt to guarantee a safe living environment by preventing his mother from harming him.
The denial of her right to personal autonomy is not the motivation of the ruling; is the inevitable side effect of the state’s determination to guard the life of the child from direct attack.
There are cases in which a government can seek to withhold one’s right to personal autonomy. Several other examples off the top of my head would be:
The application of handcuffs during temporary detention
Straightjackets for psychiatric patients
Mandated blood draws for purposes of taking blood alcohol levels
The restriction of free passage for prisoners
Bed restraints for hospital patients who are confused
There are two primary reasons the state will allow for the supersedence of one’s personal autonomy, and those are for the safety of the individual, and for the safety of others. We consider this to be just and sometimes necessary, despite personal unhappiness or inconveniency. I can think of two instances in which one has had personal autonomy being (perhaps unfairly) revoked. From the above examples:
Example #1: There’s been a large street brawl involving a large amount of people. The police may come and put several individuals into handcuffs (temporarily) in order to regain control of the situation. Most likely, based upon individual and eyewitness testimonies, they will correctly place the perpetrators of the brawl into restraints. However, it often occurs that an innocent bystander, who had not actually *participated *in the event but who had the misfortune of being in the near vicinity also gets placed into restraints as a precaution until the issue can be sorted out. This would be a case of an innocent person being restrained under mitigating circumstances out of consideration for the safety of the officers and everyone around them.
Example 2: An elderly patient lying in a hospital bed becomes confused and keeps attempting to pull out a central venous line through which he is receiving antibiotics. Because of the danger of profuse bleeding from the site, the staff lawfully exercises the authority to cover his hands with mitts. The patient is innocent of wrongdoing, but his freedom of movement is limited nonetheless out of concern for his personal safety.
Variation of Example 2: An elderly patient lying in a hospital bed becomes confused and begins to lash out, not only at himself, but also toward the nurses and aids who are attempting to care for him. Although the patient is innocent of malice due to his diminished mental capacity, it is lawful to restrain him to the bed so that the hospital staff is protected from harm.
Therefore, although the right to control over one’s own body is generally considered to be an ensured right, there are instances in which the state can temporarily revoke it for the good of the individual and others. Obviously, in the case of abortion, the justification for the revocation of the woman’s personal right would be the overriding concern for the innocent life (the child that resulted from the rape). It is the protection of the innocent life is the primary concern, *not *the woman’s status as an innocent victim of rape, unfortunate as that may be. The justice done for *her *is to place her assailant in jail and give her the option of relinquishing responsibility once the child is born. The justice done for the innocent *child *is to attempt to guarantee a safe living environment by preventing his mother from harming him.
The denial of her right to personal autonomy is not the motivation of the ruling; is the inevitable side effect of the state’s determination to guard the life of the child from direct attack.
L
lerapt78
Guest
Regarding “Force” and “Control of a woman’s uterus”
I don’t think this is a fair, or even accurate, charge. No one suggests “forcing” a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. Women have been able to terminate their pregnancies using the crudest methods available which the earliest of written records have shown us. If a woman wants to abort a child, she will find a way, legally or otherwise. A woman’s control over her uterus would in no way be directly controlled by the state.
There’s a difference between suggesting that a pregnant rape victim be confined to a cell, with her body restrained, and under the watchful eyes of video surveillance for nine months. . . . .and suggesting that a woman have no legal “right” to seek a professional and government-approved legal service. The first part of the sentence defines “force”; the second defines the refusal to place a federally-protected stamp of approval over her choice to abort.
The state maintains no direct jurisdiction over the woman’s body by refraining to provide abortive services any more than the state is physically prohibiting me from shooting heroin into my veins by not allowing Walgreens pharmacy to stock it.
I don’t think this is a fair, or even accurate, charge. No one suggests “forcing” a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. Women have been able to terminate their pregnancies using the crudest methods available which the earliest of written records have shown us. If a woman wants to abort a child, she will find a way, legally or otherwise. A woman’s control over her uterus would in no way be directly controlled by the state.
There’s a difference between suggesting that a pregnant rape victim be confined to a cell, with her body restrained, and under the watchful eyes of video surveillance for nine months. . . . .and suggesting that a woman have no legal “right” to seek a professional and government-approved legal service. The first part of the sentence defines “force”; the second defines the refusal to place a federally-protected stamp of approval over her choice to abort.
The state maintains no direct jurisdiction over the woman’s body by refraining to provide abortive services any more than the state is physically prohibiting me from shooting heroin into my veins by not allowing Walgreens pharmacy to stock it.
S
St_Francis
Guest
As others have clearly explained, there is a difference between prohibiting an action and requiring an action. To prohibit a woman from killing someone is very different from requiring her to have a baby. In the first case, the baby already exists and she is not to kill it; in the second, there is no baby.
As to whether forbidding her to kill her child is analogous to requiring her to give her kidneys or something, no. The analogy does not exist.
L
levinas12
Guest
This is a good posting.
The issue for aux1 is not moral obligation per se. Rather, it’s state interference. Yet aux1 has yet to provide criteria for distinguishing moral obligations that the state should enforce from those moral obligations the state shouldn’t enforce. This is the crux of the debate.
Perhaps your list of examples of state interference can spur us on to clarifying such criteria.
I think a number of previous postings are moving in this direction. Many have pointed out what you could call the “extrinsicality” of the violinist who is seen simply as an “appliance” that you can plug and unplug (with the “unplugging” being the return to the status quo ante).
Is such an “extrinsic” connection comparable to the baby’s attachment to the mother?
What are differences?
We need to unpack this a bit further.
L
levinas12
Guest
I’m assuming that aux1 agrees that it’s immoral to unplug the violinist. This is not what Thomson, who invented the “violinist” analogy, is saying. Thomson does not think that the woman has a moral obligation to let the violinist use her kidney.
This is a major difference between aux1 and Thomson.
aux1 is arguing only that the state should not interfere to enforce this particular moral obligation.
I hope I haven’t misrepresented aux1’s position. And, for that matter, I hope I haven’t misrepresented Thomson’s position.
This is a major difference between aux1 and Thomson.
aux1 is arguing only that the state should not interfere to enforce this particular moral obligation.
I hope I haven’t misrepresented aux1’s position. And, for that matter, I hope I haven’t misrepresented Thomson’s position.
L
lerapt78
Guest
Thanks.
Well, I don’t really like the violinist analogy much because it seems more along the lines of an elaborate 1980’s sci-fi plot than a hypothetical event that could be realistically compared to that of the pregnant mother. Why would one artificially connect two living people when the Music Lover’s Society could have simply performed surgery and transplanted *one *kidney into the violinist and left the remaining one in the victim so that *both *could live??
Talk about doing things the hard way!Anyway, assuming that the violinist scenario is a reasonable one. . . . . .when you bring up the observation of the extrinsic nature of it, I think you’ve hit upon another good point. I’m not a philosopher, so I might be getting in over my head here, but when I thought about it this phrase came to my mind: “The whole greater than the sum of its parts”. The quote as I understand it is taken to mean that although different components may each have their own importance, the end product of their unity with is what has the greatest value. So if we are in keeping with what it means to value the human body:
The violinist was in danger of dying a natural death from the very beginning; whatever parts he had didn’t work properly. What the Society of Music Lovers did was *artificially *prolong his life via the means of a third party. The abortion analogy does not fit because the fetus - while in danger of natural death as well, (by miscarriage) - does not require an artificial means of life support. The mother’s placenta (and the umbilical cord that comes from it) is what will naturally sustain the body of the child. They are biologically linked and will function together as nature intended, so in a way these organs become parts that make up the sum of the child’s “whole”.
The violinist on the other hand, while having poor-functioning parts, will still remain “whole” even if he is disconnected/unplugged. His “whole” is still being respected as having value because no one is deliberately altering his parts - they are allowed to remain functioning to the best of their abilities. I might even suggest that his death becomes morally neutral. Therefore, unlike simply “unplugging” the violinist and respecting his body’s ability to thrive on its own, to purposely alter the functioning units of an unborn child is commit battery/assault. I know those words are harsh, but taken at their standard definition they are appropriate. You can’t remove/alter a piece of the mother without removing/altering a piece of him, and I just don’t view a pre-natal child in the same way I would a cancerous tumor that needs to be excised.
I hope my ramblings made some sense, lol.
D
drac16
Guest
Rape is undoubtedly a huge crime, but two wrongs don’t make a right.
- Status